The developers behind the $3.6bn Queen’s Wharf precinct are suing Brisbane City Council, the Queensland Valuer General and Department of Natural Resources over its rate bill, and land valuation — claiming it has been charged $30m retrospectively.

Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations – the entity taking council to court – is a joint venture between Hong Kong-based Chow Tai Fook Enterprises and Far East Consortium.

Former partner Star Entertainment Group announced to the ASX it had disposed of its interests in the site from April 1, 2026.

Under the arrangement the Star is being paid $18m annually by the former partners.

A Destination Brisbane Consortium (DBC) spokesman said the company believes it has been subject to “unfair and unreasonable rates that are significantly higher than comparable major properties in Brisbane and across Queensland”.

The company claims it would have to pay $5.1m a year in rates at the site — which it claims is the highest in Queensland.

Council is yet to be paid any rates from the owners of the site since the casino opened.

“The proceedings will also challenge retrospective rates estimated at more than $30 million, levied for periods when Queen’s Wharf was still under development and operating under development leases over State-owned land, and therefore DBC should not have been subjected to rates at that time,” a company spokesman said.

City of Brisbane created a dedicated rating category for the development in the 2022/23 financial year, imposing costs which it said reflects the high value and service levels of the precinct.

Brisbane City Council deputy mayor Fiona Cunningham said the rates paid by a multibillion-dollar integrated resort should not be calculated in the same way as a suburban business or family home.

“The Queen’s Wharf development represents the largest private development in Queensland at $3.6bn and includes a casino, luxury hotels, 2000 apartments and retail precincts,” she said.

“As a very large property a dedicated rating category was created in 2022/23, the Queen’s Wharf Development Area.

“The rates and charges adopted through the council budget for this precinct reflects the high service levels applicable in the location and the significant land value of the site.

“Importantly, I want to reiterate today that we value the important role that Queen’s Wharf has played and will continue to play in boosting Brisbane’s economy.

“The rates and charges adopted through the council budget for this precinct reflect the high service levels applicable in this location.”

The DBC spokesman said the consortium had invested $430 million in public infrastructure and open space at Queen’s Wharf and, under its agreement with the State Government, is responsible for managing and maintaining all public infrastructure and open space across the precinct for 25 years ensuring significantly reduced demand for Council services.

“DBC also invests approximately $8m annually in precinct activation and provides a revitalised precinct generating significant employment and improved facilities for community use, public events and tourism, along with providing the Neville Bonner Bridge which delivered further connectivity between South Bank and Brisbane’s CBD,” he said.

DBC chief operating officer Justin Casey said it was “disappointing” the company had to resort to legal proceedings.

“We have repeatedly sought to resolve these issues with Council but unfortunately have been unable to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome,” he said.

In a brief administrative hearing on Tuesday the Supreme Court heard the consortium was seeking a review of council decisions going back to 2023.

The consortium is seeking an extension of time to bring their application for a judicial review which is opposed by council.

“It is true that the rates notices which they received, they received over the period in 2025, which gave effect to the budget decision,” tax barrister David Marks, KC, said.

“But the budget decision is sitting there since 2023.

“That’s why we say that the 28 days to bring a (judicial review application)should be observed, and we will oppose that.”

Mr Marks argued the extension of time application should be decided prior to the final case being heard.

Jonathan Horton, KC, for the consortium, submitted both matters should heard at the same time to save resources and costs as was usual. The consortium is also seeking relief from council decisions under the Civil Proceedings Act which is not limited by time.

Justice Graeme Crow found merit in a staged approach setting the extension of time point and a strike out application foreshadowed by council to be heard in December.

“Then directions can be made necessary to take the matter forward to a final hearing in respect of the matters that the extension of time is not required,” he said.