It is not "mathematically possible" for some residents of Victoria's public housing towers to return after they are knocked down and rebuilt, a court has heard.
A hearing for a class action against the state government over its plan to demolish and rebuild all 44 of Melbourne's high-rise public housing towers was held in Victoria's Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The public housing towers are set to be redeveloped by 2051, with five in Flemington, North Melbourne and Carlton to be replaced by 2031.
The project was a key pillar of the state government's housing statement, unveiled by then premier Daniel Andrews in September, and will lead to the forcible relocation of more than 10,000 residents.
Some claim their human rights were not properly considered and want the plan to be paused and reconsidered.
The case's lead plaintiff is Barry Berih, a tenant of a tower on Alfred Street in North Melbourne who was previously involved in a class action against the state government over its sudden COVID lockdown of tower residents in 2020.
His barrister Leigh Howard said there was no evidence of cabinet considering residents' human rights before announcing the plan, which the government says will boost social housing by 10 per cent across the sites.
"They found out by the news," he said.
Some 427 of the 484 residents who would be captured in the class action have already signed relocation agreements.
But Mr Howard said there was separate pledge given to pre-existing tenants on Abbotsford Street in North Melbourne, signed by former minister Martin Foley, guaranteeing the right to return to their estate after construction is finished.
"It's not mathematically possible to, like-for-like, relocate these tenants," Mr Howard said.
"The evidence of the Abbotsford Street development has been completely misrepresented."
Mr Howard pushed for an injunction on the government signing contracts to redevelop the towers.
A demolition tender is set to be released in April but defence counsel Liam Brown SC said no contract would be awarded until the third quarter of this year.
He raised an estimate from Homes Victoria chief executive Simon Newport that an injunction, if granted, would cost the agency $130,000 a month to hold nearby properties for residents to move into.
Justice Andrew Keogh said an early trial would negate the need to "kick the can down the road" but flagged he would consider requiring the defendant to give 14 days' notice.
Homes Victoria estimates renovating and maintaining the 44 towers instead of rebuilding would cost $2.3 billion over 20 years, or about $55 million per tower.
Mr Brown argued cabinet acted within its remit as the government's "supreme policymaking body" and flagged it would move for summary dismissal of the case.
"What we say, when one has regard to the entirety of the housing statement, is that this is a quintessential policy decision," he said.
"It's a decision about how the state should facilitate access to housing in this state."
Justice Keogh suggested the case would likely proceed to trial across two days in July if the summary dismissal application was knocked back.
Premier Jacinta Allan said the redevelopment plans would take advantage of the sites' proximity to jobs and public transport.
"This is exactly the sort of place we want to build more homes," she told reporters.
