logo
Shock twist as former Virgin CEO to tear down $17m mansion

Shock twist as former Virgin CEO to tear down $17m mansion

News.com.au27-05-2025

In a shock twist, the outgoing CEO of Virgin Australia plans to tear down a $17m home she bought just months ago, asking council to permit two planning breaches in the aftermath.
Janye Hrdlicka – who has been assisting new Virgin Australia CEO Dave Emerson transition to the top job from mid-March – spent $16.9m buying a 1970s-era home at auction in September last year, which settled four days before Christmas.
But just five months on, Ms Hrdlicka is seeking Noosa Shire Council approval to not just tear it down – but put in its place a stunning luxury home across three levels one of which is a basement, with two of its design elements requiring special exemptions from council.
The first is the height of her planned dream build, with the Noosa Plan 2020 stipulating it should be two storeys – something Mr Hrdlicka seeks to get around by creating a basement level 'floor level L0' to house her gym and games room, with the first and second levels containing the kitchen, living and outdoor living, terrace and swimming pool areas on the upper ground floor; with the home also having a master bedroom, and three other ensuited bedrooms.
Despite that, she will still be outside the stipulated height limit which sits at 8m, while her dream home design has a 600mm encroachment to sit at 8.6m.
She is hoping council planner will allow her to build part of her roof line higher than the 8m height limit, with the application claiming it was 'not obscuring views from neighbours across the street or adjoining'.
The second exception being called for is to let her go outside the Noosa Plan 2020 rules concerning her steeply sloping site. The council rules state that buildings and structures are not to be constructed on land with a slope greater than 33 per cent, but her proposed design touches a slope greater than 33pc – located in the northwest corner of the design next to the pool.
The site's geotechnical investigation by Techtonic submitted with the application to council said plans for the steep slope and soil type in back sections will require extra protection and drilling down 5 to 6m below the finished ground level to put in a pile wall to protect the development including the pool. With those in place, it felt the design would work well.
Zac Efron's Aussie long lunch haunt is on the market
The block is in one of Noosa's most expensive streets because of the 180 degree views from Noosa National Park to Settlers Cove, Noosa Sound, Noosa River, Hastings St, Noosa Main Beach, Laguna Bay, right out to Double Island Point.
The move comes two years after the death of her husband Jason Gaudin and almost three years since she sold up her Melbourne home for circa $18m to focus permanently on Queensland.
Buyer of $12m mansion plans to give it away
Ms Hrdlicka, who has had extensive experience across Qantas, Jetstar and other businesses before joining the Brisbane-based airline company, said in March that 'it has been a career highlight and a huge privilege to lead Virgin Australia'.
'I could not be more proud of how much we have achieved together as a team. Today, Virgin Australia is the most reliable airline, the most trusted and the most loved airline in the country and is delivering exceptional returns for its shareholders.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition
Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition

News.com.au

time15 minutes ago

  • News.com.au

Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition

NSW Premier Chris Minns says law-abiding citizens are being 'dragged into the black market' by the federal government's tobacco tax – and he wants that to change. Mr Minns threw down the gauntlet this week when he called for a re-evaluation of the tobacco excise, kicking-off political rows in both Sydney and Canberra. Twice yearly, the federal government sets the excise for tobacco products but in this year's budget recorded a $5.2bn decline in revenue since 2022-23. The NSW Premier has pointed the finger at illicit sales at tobacconists, some 5000 of which have opened up across NSW over the past few years. 'There's a whole bunch of law-abiding people who wouldn't break the law in a million years,' Mr Minns said. 'But, they're being dragged into a black market where they go to the store and they can either buy a $17 packet of illegal cigarettes or a $60 packet of cigarettes. 'It's a no-brainer.' Despite pushback, Mr Minns said every tax change started with 'an idea from someone who calls out a policy that's no longer fit for purpose'. 'So, let's get the ball rolling here because these illegal tobacco stores are pushing out hot bread shops, small businesses and restaurants. 'Because the sales from illegal tobacco are so lucrative, they can just pay the rent at a higher price. 'Something's gone amiss here and we need to have a crack at fixing it alongside our federal colleagues.' Mr Minns earlier signalled that police resources may have to be moved from domestic violence and organised crime to combat illicit tobacco. Mr Minns said the situation was 'intolerable', with 'every to-let shop in every high street in Sydney taken over by a tobacconist'. 'The biggest supporters of a massive excise on tobacco sales in NSW are probably organised criminals,' he said. 'It's a giant black market and major display on every street in every suburb in NSW.' No easy answers On Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers ruled out any change to the excise, saying making cigarettes cheaper wouldn't solve the issue of the booming illegal tobacco trade. In NSW, there are about 19,500 tobacco stores across the state – up from 14,500 a few years earlier – that are overseen by only about 30 health inspectors. A parliamentary inquiry into illicit tobacco sales, pushed for by the NSW opposition, will later this year examine which agency is best suited to the task. Until now, Liberal leader Mark Speakman has remained mum on whether NSW Police should takeover illicit tobacco enforcement from NSW Health. On Thursday, Mr Speakman said illicit tobacco had exploded under Mr Minns and organised criminal gangs were 'raking in big money'. 'They know NSW has minimal enforcement and some of the weakest penalties in the country,' Mr Speakman said. 'While other states have acted to drastically increase penalties and improve enforcement, Chris Minns has been missing in action. 'Now that the federal Treasurer has ruled out changes to the federal excise, Chris Minns needs to tell people how he is going to tackle this issue.' Under law, an individual found to be selling a prohibited tobacco product faces a maximum fine of $55,000 for a first offence. Those laws will change on July 1 when a new tobacco licensing scheme is introduced, requiring businesses to obtain a tobacco retailing licence. Businesses found to be selling tobacco products without a licence will face fines of up to $220,000 and $44,000 for an individual. Nonetheless, the issue sparked a fierce debate in NSW parliament on Wednesday between Mr Speakman and Police Minister Yasmin Catley. Asked about whether anti-gang Taskforce Falcon will expand its remit to illicit tobacco, Ms Catley struck out. 'The leader of the opposition knows that it is Health that enforce illicit tobacco. He knows that,' she said. 'And, he has come in here and has the audacity to come in here and say the police are not doing their job. Well, shame on you. Shame on you. 'NSW Police are doing absolutely everything they can and I am disgusted that the leader of the opposition could come to the NSW parliament and suggest otherwise.' For his part, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park has pointed the finger at the former Coalition government for not earlier introducing a licensing scheme. What do the experts say? Over the past six years, the duty price put on a 20-pack of cigarettes has gone up by about 75 per cent – from $16 to $28. As a result, the price of a packet at the counter sits about $40-50, with the cheapest little more than $30. Illicit cigarettes, meanwhile, cost about $13-15 per 20-pack and up to $20 for premium brands. University of Sydney School of Public Health researcher Edward Jegasothy supported Mr Minns' comments on the tobacco excise. He said there was no solution to the prevalence of illicit tobacco without a re-examination of the 'punitive' policy. 'There's really no ethical basis for the policy because it's essentially just a punitive policy attack on the poor,' he said. Mr Jegasothy said the policy had failed to demonstrate any 'meaningful health benefits and certainly no equitable health benefits'. 'I can't see a solution that doesn't have involve bringing down the tax,' he said. 'It has to be part of the solution … because it is essentially putting more holes in the bottom of the boat.' Mr Jegasothy said the belief that the excise, in increasing the cost of cigarettes, would reduce rates of smoking 'didn't hold water'. With rates of smoking higher among poor and marginalised groups, he instead encouraged solutions that addressed the root causes, 'which is largely poverty'. He urged for a review of the excise as a public health policy, including up until the explosion of black market sales in the early 2020s. That explosion, Mr Jegasothy suggested, came as a result of a combination of factors, including the cumulative impact of the excise and a tightening on loose leaf tobacco. The Australian Association of Convenience Stores has also backed Mr Minns' call for a rethink of the tobacco excise. Chief executive Theo Foukkare said it was 'extraordinary that it's gotten to this point'. 'Tobacco is a price-sensitive consumer product,' he said. 'If you put a price on it that is manifestly higher than what people can afford, they'll find a cheaper alternative and that's where this incredibly dangerous black market is cashing in – and even worse, they're using that money to fund the most atrocious crimes.' What about other states? NSW is far from the only state or territory in Australia where the issue of illicit tobacco has become a hot-button topic in recent years. In Victoria, police have continuingly battled the so-called tobacco wars, conflict between organised crime groups during which stores have been burned. According to Victoria Police, there were about 1300 stand-alone tobacco stores in the state – of these, 1000 sell some kind of illicit tobacco. From July 1, business caught possessing or selling an illicit tobacco product in Victoria face fines of up to $1.7m. For an individual, that penalty is about $830,000 or 15 years in prison. Further north, Queensland Health seized more than 15.2 million illicit cigarettes worth $12.2m across the state between July 1, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Mr Jegasothy said outside of NSW and Victoria, there was little publicly available information about the prevalence of illicit tobacco.

Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it
Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it

ABC News

time34 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it

It's no secret that Aldi, the supermarket chain that once had the slogan "like brands, only cheaper", sells products visually similar to well-established competitors. In the cereal aisle of each store, brown boxes of Power Grain are reminiscent of their Kellogg's counterpart, and in the snack aisle packets of Blackstone chips appear to draw inspiration from Red Rock Deli. In the US, blue boxes of Aldi-brand cream-filled biscuits are so similar to Oreos that the company behind the snack giant is suing the supermarket for "blatant copying". It's not the first time the chain has landed in legal trouble over its cheaper, duplicated private-label brands. In Australia, there have been several legal cases against Aldi. But intellectual property and consumer experts are not worried about this case creating legal implications for Australian consumers, who they say are largely unphased by Aldi's "phantom labels". "Ultimately the key reason they [Aldi] do this is about visual congruence," retail expert Gary Mortimer said. "So, when we're shopping in a supermarket, it's historically a mundane, habitual, low-involvement decision-making context. 'You walk down an aisle and you think Cadbury is purple. They [consumers] are influenced by pack colour, brand name or packaging shape." Professor Mortimer said when a consumer saw a product similar to another brand's, they might infer it was the same. "What the danger is, is a customer goes, 'Well, actually, their cereal is just as good as the Kellogg's version,'" he said. "Brands themselves spend a lot of money ensuring their brand is high quality. "Then a new player enters with a private label that looks very similar and, therefore, all of that positioning you've done with that product, the private label takes advantage of that position. "Brands would be concerned about that." Professor Mortimer said the private Aldi label was perceived as higher value than, say, the Coles or Woolworths generic-brands. "You won't get Aldi-brand biscuits, you'll get Belmont." In fact, they are so popular, other chains are taking a leaf out of the Aldi playbook, creating their own, cheaper, private brands. He said Woolworths and Coles had created private labels that sold cleaning products and pet food. "To some point, supermarkets understand we won't feed our dog Woolworths pet food but we might feed them a cheaper brand like Baxter's, which is actually Woolworths owned." With Choice ranking Aldi as the cheapest supermarket in Australia in its past five surveys, legal experts say the occasional legal challenges Aldi faces for sailing "close to the wind" with its packaging and branding are largely justified. While Aldi has faced legal challenges in Australia in the past over its packaging and the likeness of its products to rivals, the University of Sydney's Fady Aoun says it is far more challenging to take Aldi to court here. The senior lecturer in intellectual property law said this was because Australia's legal systems were vastly different to those in the US, for instance. "In the realm of trademark law and other forms of forms of policing commercial practices, American law is vastly different to Australian law," he said. "And, in addition to trademark infringement, they have something called unfair competition, which Australian law doesn't adopt "Their trademark law is far more protective of arguably trading interests and goes further than the Australian law in this respect." But there are several ways legal action can be pursued. Last year in Australia the company Hampden Holdings and Lacorium Health Australia successfully sued Aldi Foods for breach of copyright in relation to children's food products. Hampden licenses intellectual property to Every Bite Counts, which sells children's food products under Baby Bellies, Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies, which are sold in Australia. In 2018 and 2019, Aldi engaged the company Motor Design to re-design the packaging for its baby food and product range. The case found that in April 2019, Aldi instructed Motor Design to reuse the Little Bellies brand as the "benchmark" for the re-design of the packaging for its Mamia dry food range. The packaging and labelling were put side by side in court documents to highlight how similar each looked. "Aldi, they sail close to the wind," Dr Aoun said. "They sometimes overstep the mark. Other times they're just short of what is impermissible. "I suspect there is a strong legal department there and that's their business mode." The court found Hampden and Lacorium's owned the packaging designs. Aldi is currently appealing against the court decision. It was approached for comment. "The typical claims in Australia here are trademark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and — much more difficult — the common law action of 'passing off'," Dr Aoun said. "Hampden is just a company that holds IP rights and they are the holder of the copyright," Jane Rawlings, an intellectual property barrister said. "So they weren't suing on the trademark; they were suing on the look of the packaging, how it presents itself to consumers. "That was successful because the court had found Aldi had deliberately modelled their snacks on the Baby Bellies." Separately, Aldi won a federal court appeal in 2018 against a deceptive conduct ruling over hair care products brought against the supermarket chain by Moroccanoil Israel. Dr Rawlings said this was harder to prove. "You have to show there is reputational goodwill in the brand, and in this purpose it is by using a similar name, brand or look that misleads consumers and that damages the goodwill of the brand because they're being diverted to a cheaper alternative or because the brand owner is losing sales," she said. "You have to still prove the conduct has been deceptive and what Aldi do is tread a fine line where they've got a lookalike brand but it's not enough to argue consumers are being misled." In the UK in 2023, Cider producer Thatcher's successfully won a legal battle against Aldi, claiming it "copycatted" its Cloudy Lemon Cider in "taste and appearance". This was a lookalike trademark case that argued Aldi's Taurus drink had been "deliberately riding on the coat-tails" of the cider company's reputation as a brand. Dr Rawlings said she believed registering a brand as a trademark was one of the best ways to protect it. "To be honest, and if I were a brand owner trying to protect the look of packaging, I'd be looking very seriously at trademarking registration because it's relatively cheap and then you can basically sue on the trademark registration." Ultimately, experts agree the impact on consumers is relatively low. "What Aldi will typically say is our consumers are not confused [and that] while they may draw inspiration from leading brands there's no confusion people know what they're getting," Dr Aoun said.

Hawthorn: Home inspected by 200 people snapped up
Hawthorn: Home inspected by 200 people snapped up

News.com.au

timean hour ago

  • News.com.au

Hawthorn: Home inspected by 200 people snapped up

A Hawthorn apartment inspected by hundreds of buyers has been snapped up by a purchaser who made a dramatic entrance to the auction. On Saturday, the two-bedroom home at 2/51 Denham St went under the hammer after being checked out by more than 200 buyer groups. The Agency Victoria's Luke Saville said that apart from the stylish and light-filled interiors, many buyers were attracted to the property because it is part of a company share title. This essentially means the 10-unit complex, where the apartment is located, is considered a company which homeowners buy into by purchasing a tenth of a share in the entire building and land. Nowadays, this is a rare arrangement with most modern apartments on strata titles. A mix of mainly first-home buyer couples and singles were interested in the home which went to auction with four bidders, starting with a $470,000 bid. Mr Saville said that one of the buyers, a woman who has sold her family home, had decided on Friday that she no longer wanted to bid. The woman was also in Perth, meaning she would miss the auction. However, the buyer contacted her daughter on Saturday, asking her to get to the auction within 30 minutes – as the mother had changed her mind and wanted the apartment. The daughter, who was out cycling, raced home and jumped in her car to get to the auction to bid on behalf of her mum. 'She got there five minutes into the auction, bid and bought,' Mr Saville said. The property ended up selling for $565,000, a sum $35,000 higher than the $530,000 reserve. Despite the rain, about 60 onlookers turned out to watch the auction. Further out of the city, a four-bedroom house at 16 Diamond Creek Rd, Greensborough, also went under the hammer on Saturday. Set on 859sq m, the home features three bathrooms, a lounge room with a timber-lined cathedral ceiling and two decks with views across the surrounding trees. Jellis Craig Greensborough and Hurstbridge's Daniel Cobern said more than 100 people had inspected the property. Two bidders contested the auction, with the house selling for $765,000 after being placed on the market at $760,000. 'A young couple bought while the underbidder was looking to do a renovation and flip,' Mr Cobern said. The buyers liked the home's size and location near parklands, public transport and Greensborough Plaza, he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store