Strata scheme CTS 16986
CTS 16986 · Registration date not recorded · Lot count not recorded · Queensland checked 30 June 2026
Public record: 1 tribunal matter. A reasonable pre-screen, but not the full picture, the financials and minutes that decide the purchase are in the report, not the registers. Read it, and obtain a strata records search, before you bid.
- 1 tribunal or court matter, the most serious about repairs and common property
- $3,000 indicative cost exposure per lot, low band
The public record is a pre-screen, not the strata report. Read on for the detail, then obtain a strata records search before you bid.
-
Public record checked
Litigation, building-work orders, and governance for this scheme, the page you are on.
- Read the strata report →
Paste the section 184 strata search or AGM minutes to see the fund balance and red flags the public registers can't. Obtain a strata records search if you do not have it yet.
- Questions to ask
The specific questions this scheme's record raises, ready for the strata manager or your conveyancer.
-
Decide
Take the public record and the report findings to your conveyancer before you bid.
Risk read
What the public record shows for this scheme, read for a buyer. This is not the strata report, and a quiet record is not a guarantee: obtain a strata records search before you bid.
-
1 litigation matter on record
Tribunal and court decisions naming this scheme as a party. A litigious building is more likely to be carrying unresolved disputes, defects, or levy fights.
Cost exposure
Low exposureAn indicative, itemised estimate of what one lot here could face, built only from this scheme's public-record signals. Indicative ranges, not this building's actual figures, and not financial advice.
Special levies are apportioned by unit entitlement. Set this from your contract; 1.0× is an average lot.
| Driver | Good | Expected | Worst |
|---|---|---|---|
Tribunal and legal costs 1 tribunal or court matter on the public record. Indicative per-lot share of tribunal and legal costs in a strata dispute (NCAT). | $500 | $3,000 | $10,000 |
| Total per lot | $500 | $3,000 | $10,000 |
Estimate only. Figures are indicative ranges from public remediation programs and reporting, apportioned to one lot; they are not this building's costed works and not financial advice. Obtain the capital works fund balance, any special levy resolved or proposed, and a strata records search before you transact.
Questions to ask before you bid
- 1
What by-laws apply to pets, parking, short-stay letting, and renovations, and have any been disputed?
Because we found a by-law matter on record.
- 2
What is the capital works (sinking) fund balance, its adequacy ratio, and the 10-year plan?
- 3
Are any special levies raised, proposed, or scoped-but-not-yet-levied?
- 4
Can I see the last two years of AGM minutes, including any motions that were defeated?
Ask about this building
Ask a plain-English question and we'll answer from our record: litigation, building-work orders, water and defect matters, the managing agent, and more.
Save keeps this scheme on your dashboard. Monitoring tracks the matter count from 1 today; we'll flag new matters here as they appear.
Building record
Strata plan CTS 16986 is on the register.
Location not mapped for this scheme yet. Map coverage is New South Wales today. Open the full map.
Litigation
- Il Palazzo [2026] QBCCMCmr 82
Repairs and common property QBCCMCmr 16 March 2026
PRIVATE NUISANCE – PUBLIC NUISANCE – UNREASOBALE INTERFERENCE – STANDING – INVESTIGATION BY ADJUDICATOR – EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF – QUIA TIMET INJUNCTION A lot owner allegedly caused nuisance and unreasonable interference to others’ use of lots and common property, and damaged common property. The questions are whether the alleged conduct could amount to private nuisance, public nuisance or unreasonable interference. The body corporate is the only applicant. The question is whether the body corporate has standing to apply orders to remedy harm to others. BCCM Act s 167(1)(a) private nuisance requires proof of ‘substantial’ interference whereas s 167(1)(b) unreasonable interference does not. The question is what is the implication of that ‘lack of substantiality’. The respondent did not make a submission in response to the application. The question is whether the adjudicator should draw an adverse inference from their lack of a denial. The applicant did not file evidence for some of the allegations. The question is whether an adjudicator is obliged to invite evidence from the applicant. The applicant sought declarations. The question is whether a declaration would have any utility in the circumstances. The applicant also sought injunctions to restrain the conduct, where the conduct had not continued. The question is whether a quia timet injunction is warranted where the likelihood of a further contravention is possibly low. The body corporate sought orders to restrict the form of the respondent’s communications with the body corporate. The question is whether an adjudicator has power to make such an order. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): s 167, 269 Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [[2025] HCA 53](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2025/53.html "View Case")
Decisions naming this scheme as a party, from QBCCMCmr via AustLII. The line beneath each matter is the decision's own catchwords, quoted; the topic tag is our grouping of those words and reads "Other" when they do not clearly fit, so you can always check it against the source. Every matter links to the full decision. Whether a matter helped or hurt the scheme is not assessed here.
Evidence ledger
Litigation-only record: this scheme is on file because a tribunal matter named its plan number, with no registry address, parcel, or map.
| Checked | Found | Match | Last checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Registry and parcel | Land registry | Stub only | Not harvested here yet |
| Governance: AGM, managing agent, annual reporting | Not yet checked | Not matched | Not harvested here yet |
| Litigation: NCAT and courts | 1 matter | Direct | Not harvested here yet |
| Levies and financials | Not yet checked | Not matched | Not in the public record |
| Defects and building-work orders | Outside current coverage | Not matched | Not harvested here yet |
| Fund balances, current levies, minutes, defects not yet litigated | Not on the public record, and no registry entry for this scheme | Not matched | Never in the public record |
What was checked, what it found, how strong the match, and when each source last ran. A source that has not run here yet reads as not checked, never as checked and clear. The unknowns the public registers structurally cannot show stay named, so silence above is never read as a clean bill.
Deep report · coming soon
On top of the public record above, the deep report will add the scheme's minutes, financials, capital-works fund, and a defect inspection. We're building it. Leave your email and we'll tell you when it's ready.