Strata scheme CTS 19297

CTS 19297 · Registration date not recorded · Lot count not recorded · Queensland checked 30 June 2026

Public record: 5 tribunal matters. 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.

5 tribunal or court matters, the most serious about by-laws
$5,600 indicative cost exposure per lot, moderate 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.

5 litigation matters 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

Moderate exposure

An 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.

Good case $700 per lot

Expected $5,600 per lot

Worst case $21,900 per lot

Your lot's share versus an average lot 1.0×

Special levies are apportioned by unit entitlement. Set this from your contract; 1.0× is an average lot.

Exposure drivers, indicative per-lot ranges
Driver	Good	Expected	Worst
Tribunal and legal costs 5 tribunal or court matters on the public record. Indicative per-lot share of tribunal and legal costs in a strata dispute (NCAT). Scaled for: 5 matters.	$700	$5,600	$21,900
Total per lot	$700	$5,600	$21,900

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 was the levy or contributions dispute about, and are any unfunded works coming?

Because we found a levy/contributions matter on record.
2
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.
3
What is the capital works (sinking) fund balance, its adequacy ratio, and the 10-year plan?
4
Are any special levies raised, proposed, or scoped-but-not-yet-levied?
5
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 scheme Add to list Monitor

Save keeps this scheme on your dashboard. Monitoring tracks the matter count from 5 today; we'll flag new matters here as they appear.

Building record

Strata plan CTS 19297 is on the register.

Location not mapped for this scheme yet. Map coverage is New South Wales today. Open the full map.

Litigation

Summer Waters [2024] QBCCMCmr 264
Levies and contributions QBCCMCmr 18 July 2024

JURISDICTION – where an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine a debt dispute under the Act, whether an application seeking the recovery of a debt is a debt dispute under the Act, and whether a defence raised by the respondents that the debt is not payable can be determined by an adjudicator REASONABLENESS – whether the body corporate acted unreasonably by not providing the respondents with a further opportunity to repair the ruptured pipe themselves; by not notifying the respondents that it would be proceeding with the repair works; and by purportedly failing to communicate effectively with the respondents – whether the repair costs are unreasonable MAINTENANCE – UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE – whether the respondents can avoid responsibility to maintain a pipe that solely services their lot and is within their lot on the basis that they did not cause damage to the pipe and that they did not originally install the pipe Act, ss 20, 94, 100, 160, 161 and 229A; Standard Module, ss 180, 211 and 212
Summer Waters [2022] QBCCMCmr 283
By-laws QBCCMCmr 1 August 2022

BY-LAW – whether a by-law purporting to require approval for work on a lot is valid – COMMITTEE DECISION – whether the committee failed to act reasonably in not approving components of a patio on a lot. Act, ss 94, 100, 169
Summer Waters [2021] QBCCMCmr 496
Other QBCCMCmr 28 October 2021

INTERIM ORDER – whether interim orders are warranted. Act, s 279
Summer Waters [2021] QBCCMCmr 207
By-laws QBCCMCmr 30 April 2021

BY-LAWS – where the respondent installed a patio on his lot – whether the patio complied with the conditions of approval – whether the respondent has breached the by-laws -whether the respondent should be required to remove the patio. Act, ss 94, 182-188
Summer Waters [2020] QBCCMCmr 130
Repairs and common property QBCCMCmr 13 March 2020

INTERIM ORDER – where lot owner allegedly installed gate on common property fence without approval – whether to make interim order to stop use of gate pending final determination. Act, s 184; 186

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.

Evidence ledger: what was checked, what it found, how strong the match, and when it was last checked.
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	5 matters	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.