QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Blue Water Co Pty Ltd v Castillo & Anor [2025] QCATA 82
PARTIES:
BLUE WATER CO PTY LTD (applicant/appellant)
v
CARLOS CASTILLO (first respondent)
THE BODY CORPORATE FOR PALM COVE COMMERCIAL CTS 33113 (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL096-24
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
0562/2023
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
24 September 2025
HEARING DATE:
12 September 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Traves
ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The time to comply with order 1 made on 26 February 2024 in application 0562-2023 is extended to 3 months from the date of this order.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where s 289(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) allows an appeal from an Adjudicator’s order on a question of law
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA AND RELATED TITLES – MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL – BYLAWS – whether a bylaw prohibiting use of Lot for real estate agency business is valid – consideration of s 169(1)(b) and 180(7) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) – whether bylaw was valid ‘regulation’ or invalid prohibition – whether finding that bylaw oppressive and unreasonable a finding of fact – whether conciliation agreement a contract – whether estoppel applies given the terms of the conciliation agreement – whether adjudicator erred in making orders that did more than necessary to give effect to the adjudicator’s reasons.
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 169, s 180, s 289
Body Corporate and Community Management (Small Schemes Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 146, s 147
Black v Summer Waters Body Corporate CTS 19297 [2022] QCATA 067
Body Corporate for River City Apartments CTS 31622 v McGarvey [2012] QCATA 47
Crystal Waters Permaculture Village & Orsv Boyle [2020] QCATA 80
Fairway Island GTP v Redman and Murray [2019] QMC 13
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for ‘The Lakes Coolum’ [2002] QCA 550
NG Enterprises Ltd v Urban Council [1997] AC 168
Swan Hill Corporation v Bradbury (1937) 56 CLR 746Swiatek v The Body Corporate for Euro Residential [2019] QCATA 158
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an appeal pursuant to s 289 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (‘BCCMA’) from an order of an adjudicator concerning a by-law of the Body Corporate for Palm Cove (second respondent). The Body Corporate and Community Management (Small Schemes Module) Regulation 2020 (Qld) applies to the Palm Cove scheme.
Palm Cove Commercial is a two lot community titles scheme: Lot One is owned by Blue Water Co Pty Ltd (the applicant), a real estate agent and Lot Two is owned by the Mr Castillo (the first respondent). Mr Castillo, who lodged the original…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Blue Water Co Pty Ltd v Castillo and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] QCATA 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine several legal issues, including whether the Adjudicator had the authority to make the orders in question, whether the bylaw was a valid regulation or an invalid prohibition, and whether the Adjudicator erred in making orders that did more than was necessary to give effect to the reasons provided. The court also considered whether the conciliation agreement between the parties constituted a binding contract and whether estoppel applied given the terms of the conciliation agreement.
The court found that the Adjudicator did not err in law in making the orders in question. The court held that the bylaw was an invalid prohibition, not a valid regulation, and that the Adjudicator was correct in finding it oppressive and unreasonable. The court held that the conciliation agreement was not a binding contract, and therefore estoppel did not apply. The court also held that the Adjudicator did not err in making orders that did more than was necessary to give effect to the reasons provided. The court dismissed the appeal and extended the time for compliance with the original order to three months from the date of the decision.
The appeal was dismissed, and the time for compliance with the original order was extended to three months from the date of the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The time to comply with order 1 made on 26 February 2024 in application 0562-2023 is extended to 3 months from the date of this order.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.