By Alesha Capone
The consortium seeking to build a $31 billion education city in Werribee has appealed a Supreme Court decision, which ruled the state government did not have to divulge why it pulled the pin on the project’s Expressions of Interest process.
As previously reported in Star Weekly, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Australian Education City’s (AEC) case on May 20.
Five years ago, the AEC was selected as the preferred bidder to develop more than 400 hectares of the East Werribee Employment Precinct.
The AEC proposed to build a commercial, educational, retail and mixed-use site including a university, research centre, secondary school, indigenous community centre and heritage park. The education city would also have been home to 70,000 people.
However, last year the state government decided not to proceed with the Expressions of Interest process for the site and has refused to reveal why.
The AEC went to the Supreme Court in February seeking a declaration that the decision to end the tender process was invalid, or an order quashing the decision.
It also sought orders which would compel the state government to provide reasons for ending the process.
But last month, Supreme Court Associate Justice Melissa Daly dismissed the AEC’s summons.
Associate Justice Daly said there were “negligible prospects” of the state government being able to produce further information “which would cause me to alter my view that AEC’s claims in this proceeding have no real prospects of success”.
At the time, AEC chairman Bill Zheng told Star Weekly that the consortium was not asking for money or compensation, but was asking for an opportunity for the state to reconsider its decision.
Earlier this month, the AEC lodged a notice of appeal against the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision, which named the Victorian Planning Authority, the state of Victoria, Minister for Priority Precincts and Assistant Treasurer as respondents.
The notice of appeal, prepared by First Port Legal, said that Associate Justice Daly “erred” in finding that the AEC’s claim had no real prospect of success within a certain meaning of a section of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
