Blue Water Co Pty Ltd v Castillo

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

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 746

Swiatek 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] QCATA 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blue Water Co Pty Ltd, the body corporate of a strata scheme, appealed against an Adjudicator's order made under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). The dispute centred around a bylaw prohibiting the use of a lot within the strata scheme for real estate agency business. The Adjudicator had found the bylaw oppressive and unreasonable, and ordered its removal. Blue Water argued that the Adjudicator erred in law by making orders that went beyond what was necessary to give effect to the reasons provided.

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.