John Lowe has lived in the park for two years. (ABC News: Ashleigh Barraclough)
In short:
A resident of a caravan park in northern Tasmania faces eviction after his case was heard in the Supreme Court.
In July, the Cape Mervyn Tourist Park served eviction notices on John Lowe and two others, arguing in court that their long-term residence was illegal.
What’s next?
While the case is pending, Mr Lowe’s eviction and removal of his residence from the park will remain on hold.
A resident of a caravan park in Tasmania’s north has won the right to take his case against eviction to the Supreme Court.
John Lowe, a retiree in his sixties who has lived at Beauty Point Tourist Park for two years, and two other people were served with eviction notices in July.
Earlier this year, Mr Lowe formed a residents’ association after a series of problems at the park, and began campaigning for the rights of park residents with politicians, the media and social media.
Beauty Point Tourist Park is located on the banks of the Tamar River in northern Tasmania. (Facebook: Beauty Point Tourist Park)
In a letter to other park residents, managing director Joshua Manticas claimed those being evicted were “actively engaged in a campaign of personal attacks against our directors”.
But after attempting to evict him, Mr Lowe took his case to the Supreme Court, which on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction barring his eviction and removing his home from the park while his breach of contract case is heard.
Park’s attempt to change rules in question
There are about 60 residents living in Cape Beauty Tourist Park, some of whom have lived there for more than ten years.
They own their own home, which the park describes as a “detachable van and outbuildings,” but pay a fortnightly fee to management.
Mr Lowe told the court his house, which he bought from the outgoing occupants in 2022, was fixed to the ground.
John Lowe formed a residents’ association in the park. (ABC News: Ashley Baraclough)
In court, the park argued that planning schemes prohibited the construction of multiple dwellings on the site.
Acting judge Shane Marshall said: “They submit that the plaintiffs’ occupation of lot 43 was under an illegal and unenforceable contract under the relevant state planning scheme.
“The first task before the court now, therefore, is to consider the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because he has unlawfully occupied Plot No. 43.”
Mr Lowe’s lawyers argued he may have existing rights to use the property, but it was unclear when the building was built and whether it pre-dated current planning laws.
Acting Judge Marshall said it was a “serious matter to be heard”.
The John Lowe House may have been built before current planning laws were in place. (ABC News: Ashley Barraclough)
In February this year, park management sent a letter to park residents saying local council West Tamar was investigating compliance issues at the park.
Caravan park residents fear eviction
The photo shows a group of people sitting or standing in a barbecue shed.
John Lowe’s “small one-bedroom home” is all he needs and all he can afford, but he and other long-term residents of a caravan park in Tasmania’s north fear they will be evicted because of a council crackdown.
The council said it was investigating allegations that permanent residents were living in the park.
Lowe’s lawyers also said the park violated its agreement with him by enacting a new set of rules in July.
He received an eviction notice shortly after the new rules came into effect.
Acting Judge Marshall said there were “serious questions to be heard” about the legality of the park’s attempt to change the rules and effectively “completely alter and reclassify the relationship between the parties”.
Mr Lowe’s lawyers also told the court that his agreement with the park allowed him to live there until at least 2073, which was the departure date listed on the signed agreement.
The park’s owners bought the business in 2016. (ABC News: Ashleigh Barraclough)
Park could force resident to demolish home
Acting Judge Marshall also assessed which party would be more inconvenienced by the decision to proceed or dismiss the case.
“The defendants claim that the balance of convenience is in their favour because otherwise they would be allowing others to occupy their property unlawfully.
He said if the case cannot proceed and the temporary injunction is not granted, the park could force Mr Lowe to demolish or abandon his residence.
He said: “Whatever inconvenience the defendant may suffer from the continuation of the litigation is of little consequence compared with the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff by the destruction of his home or its uninhabitability.
This is the second time Mr Lowe has received a temporary injunction from the Supreme Court preventing his deportation and Tuesday’s decision was a retrial.