Strata scheme CTS 40659

CTS 40659 · Registration date not recorded · Lot count not recorded · Queensland checked 30 June 2026

Public record: 2 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.

2 tribunal or court matters, the most serious about repairs and common property
$3,700 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.

2 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

Low 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 $500 per lot

Expected $3,700 per lot

Worst case $13,000 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 2 tribunal or court matters on the public record. Indicative per-lot share of tribunal and legal costs in a strata dispute (NCAT). Scaled for: 2 matters.	$500	$3,700	$13,000
Total per lot	$500	$3,700	$13,000

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 is the capital works (sinking) fund balance, its adequacy ratio, and the 10-year plan?
2
Are any special levies raised, proposed, or scoped-but-not-yet-levied?
3
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 2 today; we'll flag new matters here as they appear.

Building record

Strata plan CTS 40659 is on the register.

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

Litigation

The Sanctuary on Buderim [2026] QBCCMCmr 137
Repairs and common property QBCCMCmr 7 May 2026

MAINTENANCE – IMPROVEMENT – DECLARATION – ADVISORY OPINION – JURISDICTION – CONTRACTUAL MATTER The applicant is a lot owner and also the representative for the caretaking service contractor for the scheme. The applicant contends that some of the common property gardens required to be maintained by the caretaker in fact contain improvements which should therefore be maintained by the owners who made them, pursuant to s 187 Standard Module. The applicant put a motion to the committee which if passed would have the committee write to owners informing them that owners’ improvements to gardens must be maintained either my that owner or the body corporate and not by the caretaker. The motion was not passed, on the bases that the changes to the gardens were not improvements and otherwise because all garden maintenance was now the caretaker’s contractual obligation. The applicant says the committee’s position would have the effect of putting that maintenance obligation on the caretaker contrary to its agreement, and would create uncertainty for owners about their obligations to maintain common property improvements. The applicant seeks a declaratory order that the committee’s position on the issue is inconsistent with the legislation. Questions: whether a change to a garden is necessarily an improvement; whether the body corporate entering a caretaking agreement to maintain gardens excuses an owners’ obligation to maintain any improvement; whether a declaration about the committee’s view on legal obligations would be an advisory opinion and hence whether making the order would be within an adjudicator’s power; whether the contractual issue is beyond an adjudicator’s jurisdiction for being a complex dispute about a contractual matter. Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld): ss 229(2), 276(1) Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020: s 187
The Sanctuary on Buderim [2026] QBCCMCmr 129
Management and meetings QBCCMCmr 29 April 2026

GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS – whether decisions made on two general meeting motions were invalid. Act, ss 242, 270(1)(c); Standard Module, ss 86, 88, 89, 90

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	2 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.