Strata scheme CTS 16986
CTS 16986 Queensland
Verdict
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.
Cost exposure
Indicative, itemised estimate of what one average 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.
Low- $3,000
Tribunal and legal costs
Indicative per-lot share of tribunal and legal costs in a strata dispute (NCAT).
Litigation · 1 matter
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, from QBCCMCmr via AustLII. The quoted line beneath each is the decision's own catchwords; the topic tag is our grouping of those words. 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.