Mackay property developer John Cowley sues Mackay Regional Council for $42m

There has been a major development in a well-known business mogul’s $42m lawsuit against a regional council over a proposed residential development.

A well-known business mogul has been dealt a blow in his $42m lawsuit against Mackay Regional Council over a proposed residential development to the city’s south.

Supreme Court Justice Glenn Martin has ordered the Mackay property developer’s amended push for the multimillion-dollar payout be completely struck out.

John Cowley, who with his wife Rhonda owns multiple development companies and trusts, has alleged council backflipped on a promise to support his push for a housing subdivision known at The Waters of Ooralea.

The discussions began in 2005. A development application was rejected in 2015.

John Cowley is suing Mackay Regional Council for $42m in a mega lawsuit over a proposed residential development. Picture: Tristan Mariano

The case involves 10 trusts, all owned and run by Mr Cowley and his wife Rhonda Cowley, suing Mackay Regional Council in the supreme court for $42m.

It is alleged the council breached its statutory obligation “in resiling from the 2011 agreement”.

As part of their case the Cowleys say the council benefited from more than $16m in infrastructure, which they alleged had only been designed and built as part of a joint agreement in relation to the housing project.

Mr Cowley claims he acted upon various “representations and agreements” with the council and as a result suffered a loss totalling $42m.

He alleged the council “stood by and allowed” them to act upon a mistaken belief the project would go ahead “in the manner agreed or represented”.

But Justice Martin said allegations the council had been “unjustly enriched” were not supported.

Mackay Regional Council successfully argued to have the Cowley’s case struck out

As part of the ongoing legal stoush the council has called on the court to strike out parts of the Cowleys’ case.

Justice Martin found the Cowley’s allegations were “little more than the description of a collection of actions by the council which are then said to amount to a breach or repudiation, but without any pleading to explain how those particulars support that allegation”.

He found “as the shortcomings” in the Cowleys’ claim were “so wide and deep it is more appropriate to strike out the entire pleading”, but has granted leave to replead.

The Cowleys had brought a cross-application to strike out the council’s defence.

“In light of this decision, there is no need to consider that application,” Justice Martin said, adding that the council’s defence was “impermissibly argumentative” and would need to “be thoroughly renovated”.

Mr Cowley argued to have the council’s defence struck out, but the move was rejected.

The council also argued that six of the 10 trusts named in the lawsuit had no standing in the case because they did not exist when the alleged agreements and withdrawal of support occurred – they were all registered in either 2018 or 2019.

Justice Martin found the claim for relief was “not rationally connected to anything which is said” about any of these six trusts.

“The mere assertion that Mr Cowley was the controlling mind of some of the (trusts) and the agent of the controlling mind of other (trusts) does not establish the necessary link between the conduct of the council and any loss or damage suffered by these (six trusts),” Justice Martin said.

“I note that there is no distinction made between any of the plaintiffs as to amounts lost.

“Rather, there is a global sum said to represent the damages of all the plaintiffs.”

Justice Martin found he was not satisfied there was no need for a trial, but said “I am satisfied that the pleading, so far as the (six trusts) are concerned, is inadequate”.