Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd
Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd manages around 550 strata schemes totalling 18,000 lots across NSW. Its average scheme size of around 33 lots is well above the state-wide average of around 20, suggesting a focus on mid-to-large buildings. It has a broad geographic spread across 124 suburbs, with Blacktown as its largest market (21%). Its portfolio has a notable commercial component at 52% of lots, with 46% residential. Its schemes have been involved in 11 tribunal and court decisions since 2021, of which 1 resulted in adverse findings.
Counts (~) are rounded figures sourced from the NSW StrataHub register. Figures may include duplication in staged or mixed-use developments and reflect data at the time of the last register extract.
Portfolio
46% resi · 52% commercial
SCA NSW
Not listed
Fair Trading
✓ Not on register
Scheme Decisions
11 in portfolio since 2021
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 46%
Commercial 52%
Utility 2%
Other 0%
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 32.6 lots. Most schemes fall in the 11–25 lot range, typical of small apartment blocks.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1962, newest 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blacktown 2148 | 112 | 2,405 | 21% | 25.0% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 47 | 1,628 | 9% | 16.0% | |
| Norwest 2153 | 46 | 4,577 | 9% | 68.7% | |
| Bella Vista 2153 | 21 | 1,209 | 4% | 40.4% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 13 | 241 | 2% | 8.9% | |
| Dural 2158 | 11 | 225 | 2% | 19.0% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 11 | 201 | 2% | 5.1% | |
| Quakers Hill 2763 | 11 | 184 | 2% | 3.7% | |
| Glendenning 2761 | 9 | 102 | 2% | 33.3% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 9 | 139 | 2% | 17.3% |
| Auburn 2144 | 8 | 137 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 7 | 214 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 7 | 119 | 1% | 6.7% | |
| Arndell Park 2148 | 7 | 172 | 1% | 30.4% | |
| Schofields 2762 | 7 | 86 | 1% | 8.6% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 6 | 189 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| South Windsor 2756 | 6 | 99 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 6 | 73 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 5 | 128 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| North Rocks 2151 | 5 | 174 | 1% | 13.2% | |
| Kings Park 2148 | 5 | 102 | 1% | 13.2% | |
| Mount Druitt 2770 | 5 | 107 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Somersby 2250 | 5 | 114 | 1% | 16.7% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 4 | 157 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 4 | 82 | 1% | 10.3% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 4 | 176 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 4 | 73 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 4 | 38 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Mount Kuring-Gai 2080 | 4 | 55 | 1% | 16.7% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 3 | 417 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Belrose 2085 | 3 | 310 | 1% | 7.3% | |
| Prospect 2148 | 3 | 122 | 1% | 10.0% | |
| Cherrybrook 2126 | 3 | 108 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Newington 2127 | 3 | 92 | 1% | 14.3% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 3 | 69 | 1% | 3.7% | |
| Mulgrave 2756 | 3 | 51 | 1% | 10.0% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 3 | 48 | 1% | 7.3% | |
| Cranebrook 2749 | 3 | 66 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Thornleigh 2120 | 3 | 46 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 3 | 40 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Northmead 2152 | 3 | 30 | 1% | 2.9% | |
| Riverstone 2765 | 3 | 18 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 2 | 478 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 2 | 134 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 2 | 138 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 2 | 98 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 2 | 170 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 2 | 91 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| North Gosford 2250 | 2 | 84 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 2 | 64 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 2 | 44 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Yennora 2161 | 2 | 40 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Concord 2137 | 2 | 41 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 4.1% | |
| Granville 2142 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 2 | 22 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Girraween 2145 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 2 | 18 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 2 | 18 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Oxley Park 2760 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 2 | 15 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Guildford West 2161 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 7.1% | |
| Beaumont Hills 2155 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Banksmeadow 2019 | 1 | 100 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 1 | 93 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Kurnell 2231 | 1 | 83 | 0% | 5.9% | |
| Pemulwuy 2145 | 1 | 83 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 1 | 58 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 52 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 1 | 51 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Wentworthville 2145 | 1 | 47 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Minchinbury 2770 | 1 | 33 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 1 | 32 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Penrith 2750 | 1 | 32 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Ambarvale 2560 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Frenchs Forest 2086 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Kellyville 2155 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Ropes Crossing 2760 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 8.3% | |
| Rooty Hill 2766 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 23 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Katoomba 2780 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Galston 2159 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Smeaton Grange 2567 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Doonside 2767 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Nirimba Fields 2763 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Prestons 2170 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Taren Point 2229 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Lane Cove West 2066 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 3.8% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Jamisontown 2750 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| West Gosford 2250 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Eastern Creek 2766 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| Waratah 2298 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Epping 2121 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Raymond Terrace 2324 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Beresfield 2322 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Dean Park 2761 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Edgeworth 2285 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Winston Hills 2153 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Clyde 2142 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Condell Park 2200 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Greystanes 2145 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Gregory Hills 2557 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Braemar 2575 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Hinchinbrook 2168 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Windsor 2756 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Oran Park 2570 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Mcgraths Hill 2756 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 6.2% |
Tribunal & Court History
11
Scheme Decisions
10
NCAT
1
Supreme Court
0.2
Manager Adverse / 100
2.0
Total per 100 Schemes
11 tribunal or court decisions in managed schemes since 2021. Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd was named as a party in 1 of these. The remaining 10 involved schemes they manage but did not name the manager directly. 1 resulted in adverse orders against Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd.
Orders Made 7
Dismissed 4
By-law enforcement 4
Common property 1
Repair & maintenance 1
Building defects 1
Ausbao sought declarations regarding the validity of meetings and a dispute notice. The tribunal found the dispute was not about the Strata Management Statement and dismissed the Owners' motion for a stay, ordering costs to the plaintiff.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Contract – where Strata Management Statement contains dispute resolution clause – where dispute regarding validity of convening of general meetings – whether dispute “about” the Strata Management Statement – whether to stay proceedings – no question of principle
Before
Pike J
Hearing
11 December 2025
File Numbers
2025/00416737
Matched Strata Plans
SP100777
Parties
Third Party v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: C N Bova SC / A Mohseni (Plaintiff/Respondent) N J Beaumont SC / T L Hollo (Defendant/Applicant) Solicitors: Dentons (Plaintiff/Respondent) Kerin Benson Lawyers (Defendant/Applicant)
Orders
(1) Defendant’s motion dated 1 December 2025 is dismissed. (2) Defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the motion. (3) The proceedings be listed in the Real Property List on 13 February 2026 for further directions.
The applicant appealed a previous decision, but the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal found the appeal lacked substance and was excessively voluminous. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the applicants to pay the respondent's costs.
COSTS – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 60(3)(c) and (e) - special circumstances – relative strengths of claims made by the parties – appeal lacking in substance
Before
D Robertson, Principal Member R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00321775
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Third Party v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: M Forgács (Respondent) Solicitors: Gokani & Associates Legal (Appellants) Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) a hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) The appellants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or as assessed in accordance with the applicable costs legislation.
Lot owners appealed a previous decision regarding a by-law, specifically challenging its validity concerning fire safety. The appeal panel dismissed the appeal because it found the lot owners' arguments to be unclear and unconvincing in their attempts to prove the bylaw was harsh, oppressive or unconscionable. The costs are reserved, and submissions will be made on that subject.
LAND LAW — Strata title — By-laws - Appeal from order of Tribunal dismissing an application that a by-law be declared invalid by reason of being harsh, unconscionable or oppressive — No question of principle
Before
D Robertson, Principal Member R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member
Hearing
20 January 2025
File Numbers
2024/00321775
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: M Forgács (Respondent) Solicitors: Gokani & Associates Legal (Appellant) Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The respondent is to provide submissions, limited to five pages, (and if necessary, evidence) on costs within 14 days from the date of these orders. (3) The appellants may file submission in response, limited to five pages, within 28 days from the date of these orders. (4) The respondent may file submissions in reply, limited to three pages, within 35 days from the date of these orders.
An Owners Corporation appealed a decision declaring a by-law invalid. The respondent applied for costs, which the Tribunal dismissed. The Tribunal determined that the appeal did not warrant a costs order due to a lack of special circumstances.
COSTS – application of r 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 – s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – need to establish special circumstances – proceedings not out of the ordinary
Before
M Harrowell, Deputy President G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00264776
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J Knackstredt (Appellant) A Gokani, Solicitor (Respondents) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellant) Gokani and Associates Legal (Respondents)
Orders
1. A hearing of the application for costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 2. The application for costs is dismissed.
An owners corporation appealed a decision that declared a special by-law invalid. The tribunal had found the by-law was harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive. The appeal was dismissed because the appeal panel agreed with the original decision that the by-law was invalid.
STRATA LAW – validity of by-law – s 139(1) Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (SSMA), by-law must not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive – operation of s 136(2) of the SSMA and relationship with ss 139(1) and 150 (power of Tribunal to declare by-law invalid) – by-law permitting carrying out...
Before
M Harrowell, Deputy President G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
15 November 2022
File Numbers
2022/264776
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J Knackstredt (Appellant) A Gokani, Solicitor (Respondent) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellant) Gokani and Associates Legal (Respondent)
Orders
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. In respect of any application for costs, the following directions apply: a) The applicant for costs (costs applicant) is to file and serve any application, evidence and short submissions (not more than 5 pages) within 14 days from the date of these orders. b) The respondent to any costs application is to file and serve any evidence and submissions in reply (not more than 5 pages) within 21 days from the date of these orders. c) The costs applicant is to file...
An Owners Corporation sought orders for building defect rectification. The Tribunal dismissed some aspects of the application due to insufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal ordered the developer to perform rectification works related to waterproofing defects in the building.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION -Strata Scheme - Building defects - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to make work orders to a value of work greater than $500,000 - Settlement agreement between owners corporation and developer -Whether settlement agreement breached - Separate contract with builder to remediate...
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
9 February 2022; written submissions to 28 April 2022
File Numbers
2020/00386106 (formerly HB 20/46506)
Matched Strata Plans
SP93227
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
C Blackwell, Solicitor (Applicant) S Puttick, Counsel (First Respondent) A Thurlow, General Manager (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) Miller Prince Lawyers (First...
Orders
(1) The first respondent (In-Style Developments Pty Ltd) and the second respondent (Arden CH (NSW) Pty Ltd are to perform, or cause the performance of, the works set out in the scope of works in Items 1 to 148 of the Scott Schedule contained at Tab 14 of the Tender Bundle filed in these proceedings by 30 July 2023. (2) The second respondent is to perform, or cause the performance of, the works set out in the scope of works in Items 149 to 172 of the Scott Schedule contained at Tab 14 of the...
An Owners Corporation appealed a decision declaring a special by-law invalid. The Owners Corporation applied for a stay of the original order, which the Tribunal partially granted. The Tribunal decided that the Owners Corporation would pay 20% of the lot owner's costs of the stay application due to late submission of material.
APPEAL – costs of application for a stay – need to demonstrate special circumstances warranting an order
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00264776
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J Knackstredt (Appellant) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellant) Gokani & Associates (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing of the application for costs is dispensed with. (2) The appellant is to pay 20% of the respondent’s costs of the application for a stay on the ordinary basis, immediately.
Lot owners sought to invalidate a by-law (SBL 17) that allowed the owners corporation to recover costs of enforcement. The Tribunal found SBL 17 was unjust, harsh, unconscionable and oppressive. The Tribunal declared SBL 17 invalid, effective from July 14, 2020.
Strata Schemes Management Act – validity of by-law – harsh, unconscionable or oppressive – inconsistent with legislation – without power – severability
Before
K George, General Member
Hearing
12 April 2022
File Numbers
SC 22/00096
Matched Strata Plans
SP77109
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Gokani & Associates Legal (Applicants) Grace Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. Pursuant to section 150(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, Special By-Law 17 is declared to be invalid on and from 14 July 2020 on the basis that it is harsh, unconscionable or oppressive. 2. Before 8 September 2022, The Owners – Strata Plan No 77109 must: (a) Obtain a certified copy of order 1 of these orders from the NCAT Registrar; (b) Lodge that certified copy of order 1 with the Registrar General NSW Land Registry Services; (c) Do all other things necessary to ensure that...
An Owners Corporation sought to pursue a building defects claim against developers. The Tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the claim against the developers was made outside the limitation period. Therefore, the request to add additional respondents and amend the application was refused.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Joinder of party after expiration of limitation period – Date when claim lodged – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction
Before
Graham Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
27 June 2022
File Numbers
HB 21/27940
Matched Strata Plans
SP90347
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: L Corbett (Respondent) A Ahmad (Proposed Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant)
Orders
1. The request to join Stadurn Pty Ltd as a respondent is refused. 2. The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Home Building Act 1989. 3. The request for leave to amend the application to add claims under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 is refused. 4. Written submissions not exceeding five pages and any supporting evidence in support of any application for costs are to be filed and served by Monday 11 July 2022. 5. Written submissions...
An Owners Corporation (OC) sought costs from the Strata Manager. The Tribunal determined that the Strata Manager must pay the OC's costs in one proceeding but not in another, based on whether the Strata Manager's case was tenable and if they conducted the proceedings to the disadvantage of the OC.
STRATA TITLE – Application for costs – Special circumstances – Claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law – Case that is unarguable
Before
D Goldstein, Senior Member
Hearing
Heard on the papers
File Numbers
SC 21/24112 & SC 21/48501
Matched Strata Plans
SP97383
Parties
Owners Corporation v Managing Agent
Representation
Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) PBL Law Group (Respondent)
Orders
1. A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2. The Owners – Strata Plan 97383’s costs application in SC 21/24112 is dismissed. Each party must bear their own costs. 3. In SC 21/48501 CLSM Pty Ltd must pay The Owners – Strata Plan 97383 costs of the proceedings such costs if not agreed to be assessed in accordance with the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
An apartment owner sought to have the Owners Corporation repaint water-damaged ceilings in her lot, arguing it was caused by the OC's failure to maintain the roof. The tribunal found the OC had failed in its duty to maintain and ordered them to repaint the affected ceilings.
STRATA TITLES - claim for breach of duty to maintain and keep in good repair the common property - s 106(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act - whether common property memorandum or bylaw exempted owners corporation from the claim - whether the Tribunal had power under s232 of the SSMA to...
Before
P. Durack SC, Senior Member K Ransome, Senior Member
Hearing
10 November 2020 & 23 February 2021
File Numbers
2020/00370998 (AP 20/35811)
Matched Strata Plans
SP87110
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Mr Szpalinski (agent for the Appellant) Strata Title Lawyers, solicitors (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is allowed. (2) Set aside Order 1 of the orders of the Tribunal made on 14 July 2020. (3) Order that within 30 days from the publication of these reasons, the respondent is to cause the ceilings in the bedroom and kitchen and living areas of the appellant’s Lot 13 to be repainted, as recommended in Sections B and C of the section of the Hire A Hubby document, dated on or about 6 September 2009, appearing under the heading “Internal Inspection Of Ceilings”.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many strata schemes does Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd manage in NSW?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd manages around 550 strata schemes (around 18,000 total lots) across 124 suburbs in New South Wales, based on the NSW StrataHub register.
- What areas does Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd provide strata management in?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd is most active in Blacktown, Castle Hill, Norwest, covering 124 suburbs across NSW in total.
- Does Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd specialise in residential or commercial strata?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd manages a mixed portfolio (46% residential, 52% commercial).
- What is the average scheme size managed by Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd manages schemes averaging 33 lots each, compared to the NSW state average of approximately 20 lots per scheme.
- Is Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW?
- Based on the SCA NSW online directory, Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd does not appear as a current member.
- Does Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd have any NSW Fair Trading enforcement actions?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd does not appear on the NSW Fair Trading Name and Shame Register, indicating no recorded enforcement actions as of our last data update.
- How many NCAT or court cases involve schemes managed by Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd?
- 11 tribunal or court cases involving schemes managed by Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd appear in NSW caselaw records since 2021.
- What is Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd's NSW strata management licence number?
- Beaumont Strata Management Pty Ltd's NSW licence number is 973862, issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.