Townsville businessman Troy Thompson has faced another significant legal setback in his protracted war with the Townsville City Council. The Supreme Court in Brisbane has dismissed his latest attempt to challenge the council's actions regarding a prominent CBD property.
Court Dismisses Application for Review
Justice Peter Applegarth delivered the ruling on Wednesday, 8 May 2024, rejecting Mr Thompson's application for a statutory order of review. The case centred on the council's decision to issue an enforcement notice for a property located at 444 Flinders Street in the Townsville CBD.
The court heard that Mr Thompson, through his company Thompson Investment Holdings Pty Ltd, had sought to overturn the council's notice. This notice was related to alleged unauthorised building work on the site. Justice Applegarth found that the application was filed outside the required 28-day time limit and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.
A Long-Running and Costly Dispute
This latest judgment represents just one chapter in a years-long and expensive legal conflict between Mr Thompson and the local authority. The dispute has involved multiple court cases and appeals, consuming considerable time and resources on both sides.
In his published reasons, Justice Applegarth noted the history of litigation, stating the current application was "another episode in long-running disputes". He emphasised that allowing the case to proceed would not be in the interests of justice, given its clear procedural flaws.
The council's enforcement notice, which sparked this specific application, demanded that certain work on the Flinders Street property be halted or rectified to comply with local planning laws.
Financial and Legal Consequences Mount
As a result of the dismissal, Mr Thompson has been ordered to pay the Townsville City Council's legal costs. This adds to the substantial financial burden already incurred from previous related court actions.
The series of lawsuits has painted a picture of a deeply entrenched standoff. Council representatives have consistently maintained they are simply administering and enforcing local planning schemes and regulations.
For Mr Thompson, a well-known figure in Townsville development circles, the repeated court losses pose serious questions about the future of his projects and his ongoing relationship with the council. The ruling effectively closes this particular legal avenue, leaving the council's enforcement notice in full effect.
The outcome reinforces the authority of local government planning decisions and underscores the importance of adhering to strict statutory time frames when mounting legal challenges. Observers suggest this decision may influence how similar disputes between property developers and councils are approached in the future.
