Interested in a Corporate TUD+ Membership?Speak to our team today for a special end-of-year discountSpeak to our team for an end-of-year discount
Resources
Newsletter
Stay up to date and with the latest news, projects, deals and features.
Subscribe
Explosive claims Grocon knew that its plans for the failed $2 billion Barangaroo development could be impacted by Crown and Lendlease's claims on harbour views have been exposed in documents lodged with the Supreme Court.
Grocon Group Holdings entered administration last month as executive Daniel Grollo prepared for a protracted $270 million compensation claim and court case against Infrastructure New South Wales over the controversial sight lines decision.
Grocon has claimed that a sight lines resolution notice was never finalised and provided to Grocon in the six years it had an interest in the site. Grocon then sold its stake in the 5.2-hectare site under “fire sale” conditions to consortium member Aqualand in 2019.
Grocon is claiming the now abolished Barangaroo Delivery Authority was aware the Crown and Lendlease sight lines dispute would impact the Central Barangaroo development, but that it withheld that information.
Infrastructure NSW lodged a 150-page response to the NSW Supreme Court in response to Grocon’s claims, arguing the developer knew of the risks associated with developing on the harbourside area and the likelihood that “Lendlease and/or Crown would use the sight lines clauses to seek to restrict the height of development at Central Barangaroo”.
Grocon declined to comment on fresh claims it was aware of the risks involved in the harbourside development.
Claims also included that Grocon knew the risk to the scale of the development and its impact on the financial viability and return that it could generate.
Infrastructure New South Wales is building a defence to the $270 million compensation claim that is likely to include emails, text messages and other correspondence between the BDA and Grocon over the course of a number of years.
Grocon has maintained it would have been able to sell its stake for much more, had the views been protected.
The case will return to the Supreme Court next month but a final judgement is not likely to be made this year.
