Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 8,478 (51%)
Commercial 7,742 (47%)
Utility 289 (2%)
Other 8 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 36.3 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 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norwest 2153 | 47 | 4,740 | 10% | 69.1% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 42 | 1,496 | 9% | 15.5% | |
| Bella Vista 2153 | 26 | 1,914 | 6% | 44.8% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 14 | 340 | 3% | 4.1% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 14 | 317 | 3% | 9.5% | |
| Dural 2158 | 11 | 225 | 2% | 18.3% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 11 | 201 | 2% | 5.2% | |
| Quakers Hill 2763 | 11 | 184 | 2% | 3.9% | |
| Glendenning 2761 | 10 | 126 | 2% | 35.7% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 9 | 139 | 2% | 18.0% |
| Auburn 2144 | 8 | 137 | 2% | 1.6% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 7 | 214 | 2% | 3.1% | |
| Arndell Park 2148 | 7 | 172 | 2% | 30.4% | |
| Schofields 2762 | 7 | 86 | 2% | 8.9% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 7 | 91 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 6 | 106 | 1% | 6.1% | |
| South Windsor 2756 | 6 | 99 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 5 | 128 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 5 | 162 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| North Rocks 2151 | 5 | 174 | 1% | 14.7% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 5 | 230 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Kings Park 2148 | 5 | 102 | 1% | 13.9% | |
| Mount Druitt 2770 | 5 | 107 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Somersby 2250 | 5 | 114 | 1% | 17.2% | |
| Mount Kuring-Gai 2080 | 5 | 80 | 1% | 20.0% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 5 | 44 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 4 | 157 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 4 | 82 | 1% | 9.5% | |
| Cherrybrook 2126 | 4 | 150 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 4 | 73 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Cranebrook 2749 | 4 | 85 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Thornleigh 2120 | 4 | 57 | 1% | 4.9% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 3 | 417 | 1% | 3.3% | |
| Belrose 2085 | 3 | 310 | 1% | 7.0% | |
| Prospect 2148 | 3 | 122 | 1% | 9.4% | |
| Newington 2127 | 3 | 92 | 1% | 13.0% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 3 | 69 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Mulgrave 2756 | 3 | 51 | 1% | 10.3% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 3 | 48 | 1% | 7.5% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 3 | 59 | 1% | 6.1% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 3 | 40 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 3 | 24 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Riverstone 2765 | 3 | 18 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 2 | 478 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 2 | 134 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 2 | 138 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Banksmeadow 2019 | 2 | 104 | 0% | 5.7% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 2 | 98 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 2 | 170 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 2 | 91 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| North Gosford 2250 | 2 | 84 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 2 | 64 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 2 | 44 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Yennora 2161 | 2 | 40 | 0% | 18.2% | |
| Concord 2137 | 2 | 41 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Granville 2142 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Northmead 2152 | 2 | 25 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 2 | 28 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 2 | 22 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Girraween 2145 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| West Gosford 2250 | 2 | 16 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| 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% | 6.9% | |
| Beaumont Hills 2155 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 1 | 93 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Pemulwuy 2145 | 1 | 83 | 0% | 8.3% | |
| Kurnell 2231 | 1 | 83 | 0% | 5.9% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 1 | 58 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 52 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 1 | 51 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| 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% | 1.1% | |
| 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% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Galston 2159 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| West Pennant Hills 2125 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Smeaton Grange 2567 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Doonside 2767 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Nirimba Fields 2763 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Prestons 2170 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Taren Point 2229 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Lane Cove West 2066 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Jamisontown 2750 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Raymond Terrace 2324 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Eastern Creek 2766 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| Waratah 2298 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Beresfield 2322 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Dean Park 2761 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Cessnock 2325 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Edgeworth 2285 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Winston Hills 2153 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| Clyde 2142 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| East Gosford 2250 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Condell Park 2200 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Greystanes 2145 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Gregory Hills 2557 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Braemar 2575 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Oran Park 2570 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Hinchinbrook 2168 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Windsor 2756 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Mcgraths Hill 2756 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 6.2% |
Tribunal & Court History
11
Total Cases
10
NCAT
1
Supreme Court
0.9
Adverse per 100 Schemes
2.4
Total per 100 Schemes
11 cases since 2021. Of these, 4 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 7 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
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”.
Google Reviews
09 Nov 2025
“Being Secretary of our SP i have dealt with a few Strata Managers. Beaumont have come up trumps compared to previous and far exceeded our expectations with regards to detailed management of our complex. It is refreshing to have a strata manager that actually takes an active interest in the...”
18 Dec 2025
“This company is completely incompetent. They increase strata 10fold without OC or SC agreement (not even discussing with them). They send notice for late levies with interest for levies paid over 1 year ago. Completely incompetent bunch of people. And when you try call.. no one picks up. Would...”
16 Oct 2025
“I would give 0 stars but not possible! This company took over our strata and the ONLY notified when contacted by debt collectors on behalf of Beaumont Strata without ever having received a single invoice or notice of outstanding fees. No emails, no letters, no communication whatsoever — just an...”
06 Sep 2025
“I am extremely disappointed with the handling of my request for a fob key. Despite making payment over a month ago, I have yet to receive the correct key. Initially I was provided the wrong keys, and despite following up multiple times by email, the issue has not been resolved. Now I am being...”
21 May 2025
“Beaumont Strata Management have looked after my property for many years and have always been available with a commonsense approach to all of my queries. I am very grateful for their swift and efficient solutions. They cannot be faulted.”