Strata scheme CTS 6951
CTS 6951 Queensland
Verdict
Public record: 3 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.
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- $4,300
Tribunal and legal costs
Indicative per-lot share of tribunal and legal costs in a strata dispute (NCAT). Scaled for: 3 matters.
Litigation · 3 matters
Bloomfield Court [2023] QBCCMCmr 236
Repairs and common property QBCCMCmr 22 June 2023
IMPROVEMENT TO LOT & COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE –Whether lot 1 should be forced to remove improvements from common property – ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE\_-\_ Whether an estoppel arises to prevent the body corporate from removing the improvements to common property by lot 1\_Act, ss 94, 100, 152, 159, 227, 228, 247, 276, 279;\_ Standard Module, ss 182(2)(a), 193(3)-(4), 201(2)(b); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4). Birstar v The Proprietors “Ocean Breeze” [[1996] QCA 110](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/1996/110.html "View Case") Bloomfield Court [[2022] QBCCMCmr 373.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2022/373.html "View Case") Oxford Court [[2022] QBCCMCmr 215](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2022/215.html "View Case")
Bloomfield Court [2022] QBCCMCmr 373
Repairs and common property QBCCMCmr 14 October 2022
IMPROVEMENT TO LOT & COMMON PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE USE – whether motions to grant both lots exclusive use of common property that already hosts improvements associated with each lot, or that will be used to host a further extension of lot 2, failed due to opposition that was unreasonable in the circumstances; whether lot 1 should be forced to remove its improvements from common property given the failure of the motions. Act, ss 10(2)(b), 35(1), 62(2)&(3)(a); Standard Module, ss 182(2)(a), 193(3)-(4), 201(2)(b); Land Title Act 1994, ss 48C, 49C(4).
Bloomfield Court [2022] QBCCMCmr 41
Other QBCCMCmr 3 February 2022
ADMINISTRATOR – whether an administrator should be appointed. Act, ss 278, 301
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 | 3 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.