A resident of a caravan park in northern Tasmania has won the right to have his case against his eviction heard in the Supreme Court.

John Lowe, a retiree in his sixties, had been living at the Beauty Point Tourist Park for two years when he and two others were issued with eviction notices in July.

Earlier in the year, after a number of issues arose at the park, Mr Lowe formed a residents' association and began advocating for those living at the park to politicians, the media, and on social media.

In a letter to the park's other occupants, managing director Joshua Manticas alleged those being evicted had "been actively engaged in a campaign of personal denigration against our directors".

But following the attempted eviction, Mr Lowe took the case to the Supreme Court, which on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction against his eviction and the removal of his home from the park while his breach-of-contract case was heard.

Park's attempt to change rules in question

About 60 people live at the Beauty Point Tourist Park, with some having been there for more than a decade.

They own their homes, which the park describes as "removable vans and annexes", but pay fortnightly fees to management.

Mr Lowe has told the court his home, which he purchased in 2022 from outgoing occupants, is fixed to the ground.

In court, the park has argued the planning scheme prohibits more than one residence on-site.

"They say that the occupation of site 43 by the plaintiff is pursuant to an illegal and unenforceable contract given the provisions of the relevant state planning scheme," Acting Justice Shane Marshall said.

"So the essential task before the court, at the moment, is to consider the claim made by the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because he is in illegal occupation of site 43."

Mr Lowe's lawyer argued he may have existing use rights, but it is not clear when the structure was built and if this predated current planning laws.

Acting Justice Marshall said this presented a "serious question to be tried".

In February, park management sent a letter to occupants saying the local council, West Tamar, was investigating the park over compliance issues.

The council said it was looking into allegations permanent residents were living at the park.

Lawyers for Mr Lowe have also argued the park breached its agreement with him by enacting a new set of rules in July.

He was issued an eviction notice shortly after the new rules came into effect.

Acting Justice Marshall said there was a "serious issue to be tried" regarding the legality of the park's attempt to change the rules and, in effect, "completely change and reclassify the relationship between the parties".

Mr Lowe's lawyer also told the court his agreement with the park allowed him to live there until at least 2073, the departure date listed by the park on a signed agreement.

Park could force resident to demolish home

Acting Justice Marshall also evaluated which party would be inconvenienced more by the decision to either proceed or dismiss the case.

"The defendants submit that the balance of convenience favours them because otherwise they would be permitting illegal occupation on their property," he said.

He said if the case could not proceed and the temporary injunction was not granted, the park could force Mr Lowe to demolish or abandon his residence.

It is the second time Mr Lowe has received a temporary injunction from the Supreme Court against his eviction, as Tuesday's decision was a rehearing.