Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,627 (66%)
Commercial 384 (5%)
Retirement 918 (13%)
Utility 655 (9%)
Other 446 (6%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 14.3 lots. The portfolio is dominated by small schemes (10 lots or fewer), typical of townhouse and villa complexes.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1962, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coogee 2034 | 89 | 796 | 18% | 13.1% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 83 | 927 | 17% | 10.2% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 32 | 219 | 7% | 7.7% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 24 | 230 | 5% | 5.2% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 23 | 253 | 5% | 4.7% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 21 | 171 | 4% | 3.2% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 20 | 109 | 4% | 13.6% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 20 | 152 | 4% | 9.1% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 18 | 209 | 4% | 10.0% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 13 | 256 | 3% | 5.2% |
| Kingsford 2032 | 10 | 126 | 2% | 4.6% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 9 | 85 | 2% | 4.2% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 9 | 85 | 2% | 11.1% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 8 | 228 | 2% | 3.9% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 8 | 114 | 2% | 2.6% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 7 | 1,569 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 7 | 59 | 1% | 2.7% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 7 | 69 | 1% | 6.4% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 6 | 63 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 6 | 47 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 6 | 59 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 5 | 184 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 4 | 69 | 1% | 5.3% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 4 | 33 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 3 | 102 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 3 | 78 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 3 | 36 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| South Coogee 2034 | 3 | 37 | 1% | 6.7% | |
| Queens Park 2022 | 3 | 23 | 1% | 9.1% | |
| Banksmeadow 2019 | 3 | 20 | 1% | 8.6% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 3 | 24 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 2 | 186 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Pagewood 2035 | 2 | 158 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 2 | 51 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Centennial Park 2021 | 2 | 22 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Avoca Beach 2251 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Mcmahons Point 2060 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Beaconsfield 2015 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Watsons Bay 2030 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Woolloomooloo 2011 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Botany 2019 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Northbridge 2063 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Malabar 2036 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.5% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Total Cases
3
NCAT
0.4
Adverse per 100 Schemes
0.8
Total per 100 Schemes
4 cases since 2021. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 2 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Lot owners sought an order requiring other lot owners to address alleged unauthorized works, but the application was dismissed due to the applicants' lack of standing. The Tribunal on appeal found the original decision-making process was flawed, denying the applicants a fair hearing.
APPEALS — appeal from order dismissing application — withdrawal of application — Tribunal made error as to jurisdiction — breach of procedural fairness — utility of appeal
Before
E Bishop SC, Senior Member H Woods, Senior Member
Hearing
29 July 2025
File Numbers
2025/00116328
Matched Strata Plans
SP62
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Appellants (Self-Represented) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Respondents)
Orders
(1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The orders made by the Tribunal in 2024/00432941 on 28 February 2025 are set aside. (3) The parties are to provide any written submissions in respect of the appeal from the costs decision dated 30 May 2025 within 21 days of the date of these orders and are to notify the registry whether the appeal from the costs decision can be dealt with on the papers.
A lot owner sought compensation from the Owners Corporation for costs associated with water damage and subsequent repairs to the unit. The Tribunal found in favor of the applicant, ordering the Owners Corporation to pay an additional amount to the applicant after an earlier payment. The Tribunal also made orders for the determination of costs.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – incidence and content of owners corporation’s strict duty to maintain and repair common property – meaning of maintain and repair - lot owner’s claim for alleged damage from alleged breach of duty and reimbursement for works to common property – owners...
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
19 September 2025
File Numbers
2024/00195987
Matched Strata Plans
SP2004
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: Mr I Chatterjee (applicant) Mr M Forgacs (respondent) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (applicant) J S Mueller & Co, Lawyers (respondent)
Orders
(1) Note that the applicant has received from the respondent prior to hearing $38,801.25 of the amount originally claimed, without further contest in the proceedings. (2) Order that The Owners – Strata Plan No 2004 pay Oberto Pty Ltd $24,354.90 on or before 22 December 2025. (3) Order, in respect of costs (determination of which was deferred until after delivery of substantive decision) and definition of parties: 1 Any party’s application for costs and submissions, any further evidence in...
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – damage caused by neighbouring tree – whether the tree has damaged the applicant’s property – whether the tree must be removed to prevent further damage – whether the respondent is fully aware of the proceedings – whether the tree is...
Matched Strata Plans
SP21340
The applicant sought to transfer proceedings to the District Court due to apprehended bias, related to a witness who was a tribunal member. The tribunal decided to dismiss the application to transfer the proceedings. The reason for dismissal was that the tribunal found no evidence of error in the original decision regarding the transfer.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Bias – apprehended bias – interest or association bias – Member of Tribunal providing lay and expert evidence in support of a claim brought by his domestic partner in proceedings in the Tribunal – application to transfer proceedings to a court pursuant to Sch 4 cl 6 of the...
Before
M Harrowell, Deputy President A Bell SC, Senior Member
Hearing
20 April 2021
File Numbers
2021/00065930
Matched Strata Plans
SP4159
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: N Li (Appellant) Solicitors: Kerin Benson Lawyers (Appellant) JS Mueller and Co Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal is granted. (2) The appeal is dismissed.
Google Reviews
21 May 2025
“I cannot recommend Angela Rudkins and the Alldis & Cox team highly enough.
I spent many weeks tracking down Angela, so that our SP could be placed back into her more than capable hands.
Our previous Strata Management Company, which changed hand several times, was not performing to the...”
22 May 2025
“I've had the pleasure of working with Angela Rudkins and the Alldis & Cox team across multiple strata projects, and I can't speak highly enough of their professionalism and consistency. Angela, in particular, stands out for her clear communication, prompt follow-ups, and ability to manage even...”
27 May 2025
“We've been incredibly happy using Alldis & Cox. Angela (our Strata Manager) has been available every time we've needed assistance and is very responsive to our needs. She has also been patient with our Committee, while also being proactive in driving for positive changes to our shared property.”
13 Jun 2025
“As a unit owner, I’ve dealt with a number of strata companies over the years and Alldis & Cox in Randwick stand in a league of their own. Their professionalism is flawless, and their deep understanding of strata legislation and building management is genuinely impressive. What sets them apart is...”
27 May 2025
“I have been with Alldis & Cox for almost 9 years. I have got the great experience with the way they handle all an email and any issues concerns.
Big thank you to Angela who always be above and beyond and try to understand all clients and committees.”