Bright & Duggan Pty Ltd is part of the Bright & Duggan group, which collectively manages 1,934 schemes (67,462 lots) across 3 entities in NSW. See also: Starr and Duggan (Real Estate) Pty Ltd, Bright & Duggan (Hunter) Pty Ltd.
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 47,058 (87%)
Commercial 5,960 (11%)
Utility 408 (1%)
Other 882 (2%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 46.5 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sydney 2000 | 51 | 5,588 | 4% | 10.0% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 37 | 580 | 3% | 12.5% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 36 | 517 | 3% | 7.6% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 32 | 598 | 3% | 3.1% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 31 | 1,537 | 3% | 16.6% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 21 | 407 | 2% | 3.4% | |
| Wentworth Point 2127 | 20 | 3,148 | 2% | 34.5% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 20 | 205 | 2% | 4.3% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 19 | 306 | 2% | 7.7% | |
| Cronulla 2230 | 17 | 250 | 1% | 1.9% |
| Cremorne 2090 | 17 | 185 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 16 | 237 | 1% | 6.3% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 16 | 257 | 1% | 9.9% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 15 | 764 | 1% | 7.6% | |
| Manly 2095 | 15 | 197 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 14 | 1,950 | 1% | 11.7% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 14 | 327 | 1% | 7.3% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 14 | 175 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 14 | 144 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Chiswick 2046 | 13 | 3,892 | 1% | 31.7% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 13 | 546 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Breakfast Point 2137 | 13 | 854 | 1% | 26.0% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 13 | 103 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 12 | 568 | 1% | 9.6% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 12 | 112 | 1% | 2.9% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 12 | 72 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 11 | 887 | 1% | 9.7% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 11 | 183 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 11 | 118 | 1% | 5.7% | |
| Belrose 2085 | 10 | 3,620 | 1% | 23.3% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 10 | 516 | 1% | 15.4% | |
| Oatlands 2117 | 10 | 1,350 | 1% | 21.3% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 10 | 318 | 1% | 4.9% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 10 | 125 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Naremburn 2065 | 10 | 118 | 1% | 10.0% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 10 | 90 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 10 | 93 | 1% | 3.9% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 9 | 804 | 1% | 9.9% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 9 | 700 | 1% | 9.3% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 9 | 772 | 1% | 6.0% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 9 | 353 | 1% | 7.0% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 9 | 367 | 1% | 3.5% | |
| Waverton 2060 | 9 | 183 | 1% | 7.4% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 9 | 127 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 9 | 245 | 1% | 4.5% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 9 | 114 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 9 | 118 | 1% | 3.9% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 8 | 1,202 | 1% | 8.7% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 8 | 161 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 8 | 128 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 8 | 195 | 1% | 5.1% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 8 | 209 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 8 | 91 | 1% | 3.8% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 8 | 53 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Eastgardens 2036 | 7 | 1,480 | 1% | 53.8% | |
| Penrith 2750 | 7 | 763 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 7 | 174 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Collaroy 2097 | 7 | 212 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 7 | 124 | 1% | 3.9% | |
| Fairlight 2094 | 7 | 66 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Artarmon 2064 | 7 | 89 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 6 | 314 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Ultimo 2007 | 6 | 361 | 1% | 9.5% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 6 | 290 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 6 | 216 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Woolloomooloo 2011 | 6 | 314 | 1% | 7.9% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 6 | 133 | 1% | 4.1% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 6 | 203 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 6 | 109 | 1% | 2.7% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 6 | 99 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 6 | 102 | 1% | 7.4% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 6 | 65 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Norwest 2153 | 5 | 870 | 0% | 7.4% | |
| Forest Lodge 2037 | 5 | 894 | 0% | 13.2% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 5 | 326 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 5 | 800 | 0% | 6.4% | |
| Milsons Point 2061 | 5 | 448 | 0% | 8.6% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 5 | 213 | 0% | 3.9% | |
| Miranda 2228 | 5 | 302 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 5 | 222 | 0% | 3.8% | |
| Narrabeen 2101 | 5 | 61 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 5 | 61 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Rosebery 2018 | 4 | 235 | 0% | 4.3% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 4 | 217 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 4 | 251 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Magenta 2261 | 4 | 205 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Epping 2121 | 4 | 92 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 4 | 185 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Botany 2019 | 4 | 67 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 4 | 52 | 0% | 5.2% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 4 | 78 | 0% | 4.7% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 4 | 71 | 0% | 5.1% | |
| Mcmahons Point 2060 | 4 | 57 | 0% | 4.8% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 4 | 50 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 4 | 57 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 4 | 43 | 0% | 5.2% | |
| Sydney Olympic Park 2127 | 3 | 695 | 0% | 18.8% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 3 | 366 | 0% | 5.5% | |
| Little Bay 2036 | 3 | 237 | 0% | 5.4% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 3 | 380 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 3 | 299 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 3 | 133 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Tweed Heads West 2485 | 3 | 306 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Dural 2158 | 3 | 246 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 3 | 161 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 3 | 97 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 3 | 80 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 3 | 75 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 3 | 96 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 3 | 48 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Mona Vale 2103 | 3 | 43 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Freshwater 2096 | 3 | 50 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 3 | 30 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Lavender Bay 2060 | 3 | 16 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 3 | 14 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 3 | 11 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Cremorne Point 2090 | 3 | 11 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 2 | 217 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 2 | 250 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 2 | 95 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 2 | 94 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 2 | 80 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Terrigal 2260 | 2 | 90 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Banksmeadow 2019 | 2 | 98 | 0% | 5.7% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 2 | 72 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Gosford 2250 | 2 | 94 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Manly Vale 2093 | 2 | 60 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 2 | 78 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 2 | 73 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Sutherland 2232 | 2 | 42 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 2 | 44 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 2 | 27 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Sylvania 2224 | 2 | 29 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 2 | 30 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Queenscliff 2096 | 2 | 35 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Queens Park 2022 | 2 | 30 | 0% | 6.1% | |
| Newport 2106 | 2 | 25 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Lindfield 2070 | 2 | 22 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| North Willoughby 2068 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 5.1% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 2 | 27 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Northbridge 2063 | 2 | 15 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 2 | 16 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 2 | 17 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Roseville 2069 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| East Maitland 2323 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Jindabyne 2627 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Gledswood Hills 2557 | 2 | 4 | 0% | 11.8% | |
| Zetland 2017 | 1 | 153 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 1 | 134 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 102 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 1 | 77 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 62 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Engadine 2233 | 1 | 61 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Wollongong 2500 | 1 | 54 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Bella Vista 2153 | 1 | 49 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 1 | 48 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| North Gosford 2250 | 1 | 48 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Killara 2071 | 1 | 42 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Sefton 2162 | 1 | 39 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Newcastle West 2302 | 1 | 38 | 0% | 2.8% | |
| Bogangar 2488 | 1 | 33 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 1 | 32 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Jannali 2226 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Centennial Park 2021 | 1 | 23 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Normanhurst 2076 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Pennant Hills 2120 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Caringbah South 2229 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| West Gosford 2250 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Huntleys Cove 2111 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 4.5% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Stanmore 2048 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| The Rocks 2000 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Mount Colah 2079 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Jamisontown 2750 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Warrawee 2074 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Gymea 2227 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Woolooware 2230 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Monterey 2217 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Kahibah 2290 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Crestwood 2620 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Toowoon Bay 2261 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Watsons Bay 2030 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Hurlstone Park 2193 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Wahroonga 2076 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| East Ryde 2113 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Seaforth 2092 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Katoomba 2780 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 1.9% |
Tribunal & Court History
21
Total Cases
9
NCAT
6
Supreme Court
2
Court of Appeal
0.4
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.8
Total per 100 Schemes
1
Compulsory Manager Appts
21 cases since 2021. Of these, 5 resulted in substantive orders (including 1 compulsory manager appointment). The remaining 16 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 14
Dismissed 7
Building defects 6
Levies & contributions 2
Compulsory appointment 1
Parking & access 1
By-law enforcement 1
The applicant sued a builder and its director for defective work. The tribunal found in favour of the applicant, finding that the building had defects and awarding damages. The tribunal also found the director liable for breach of duty of care and rejected the defendants' arguments regarding contributory negligence.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Implied terms — Statutory warranties under s 18B of Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Whether building work complied with Building Code of Australia (BCA) — Where under BCA different standards relating to waterproofing exists depending on correct...
Before
Richmond J
Hearing
11–15, 20 November 2024 Last submissions 7 February 2025
File Numbers
2021/00127949
Matched Strata Plans
SP84674
Parties
Third Party v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J Mack (Plaintiff) C W Robinson (Defendants) Solicitors: Litigation Specialists (Plaintiff) Valorum Legal (Defendants)
Orders
(1) Direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons within 14 days; (2) Liberty to apply.
A developer sought the appointment of a trustee to facilitate the sale of a lot under a strata renewal plan. The tribunal granted the application, as the lot owner had failed to comply with previous orders requiring them to sell their lot. The trustee was appointed and the owner was ordered to pay the costs.
LAND LAW – strata title – notice of motion – Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) – ancillary orders – appointment of a trustee for the sale of an owner’s lot
Before
Pritchard J
Hearing
11 June 2025
File Numbers
2023/313769
Matched Strata Plans
SP934
Parties
Developer v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: M Parrino, solicitor (Applicant) J McKelvey (Applicant on the motion) Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Applicant) Dentons (First Respondent/Applicant on the motion) No appearance (Second to...
Orders
See orders at [32] of judgment
The owners corporation, supported by the developer, sought to give effect to a strata renewal plan. The tribunal determined that the plan should proceed and the dissenting lot owner must sell. The Tribunal made orders related to the plan's execution, including sale price, and termination of the strata plan once the developer becomes the registered proprietor.
LAND LAW — strata title — strata renewal plan for redevelopment — Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) — one dissenting owner not a party to the proceedings — strata renewal plan given effect
Before
Pritchard J
Hearing
2 July 2024, 26 March 2025
File Numbers
2023/313769
Matched Strata Plans
SP934
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J McKelvey (First Respondent) C Leggat SC and M Astill (Second to Twentieth Respondents) Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Applicant) Dentons (First Respondent) Bugden Allen Graham Lawyers...
Orders
See orders at [96]
The owners corporation and a developer sought to give effect to a strata renewal plan for a building redevelopment. The tribunal determined the sale price for one lot needed to be increased, but the variation was minor. The tribunal made orders for the applicant to obtain written agreement to the change.
LAND LAW — strata title — strata plan — proposed variations to strata renewal plan for redevelopment — whether proposed variation is of a minor nature that does not affect the plan in any substantial way — s 182 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) — whether proposed variation to the...
Before
Pritchard J
Hearing
2 July 2024
File Numbers
2023/313769
Matched Strata Plans
SP934
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J McKelvey (First Respondent) C Leggat SC and M Astill (Second to Twentieth Respondents) Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Applicant) Dentons (First Respondent) Bugden Allen Graham Lawyers...
Orders
The Court makes the following orders: (1) The applicant, in order to satisfy the requirement in s 182(3)(b) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) (SSD Act) to seek from owners of each lot in relation to which a support notice has been given, within the meaning of s 174(1) of the SSD Act, for the strata renewal plan for the redevelopment of Strata Renewal Plan 934 dated 2 March 2023 (the strata renewal plan) written agreement to a variation to Annexure B to the strata renewal plan...
The owners corporation and developer were in a dispute over building defects. The developer sought documents related to maintenance but were initially refused. The court ultimately ordered the production of documents, but made no order regarding costs.
COSTS – dispute concerning production of documents said to be required by experts to conclude their reports – appropriate course to seek pre-evidence disclosure and demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the purposes of Practice Note SC Eq 11 – combative correspondence exchanged leading...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
On the papers; written submissions 28 and 31 October 2024 and 4 November 2024
File Numbers
2020/243233
Matched Strata Plans
SP89791
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D S Weinberger (Plaintiff) B Le Plastrier (Defendants) Solicitors: Construction Legal (Plaintiff) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Defendants)
Orders
No costs order made
The owners corporation sought orders for a lot owner to repair water damage. The tribunal ordered the lot owner to repair the drain and address the water leak. The tribunal dismissed both parties' applications for costs, finding no special circumstances.
COSTS – Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Special circumstances
Before
D Robertson, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00402022 (Previously SC 23/15133)
Matched Strata Plans
SP13631
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Solicitors: Jane Crittenden Lawyer (Applicant) Morson Law (First Respondent)
Orders
Pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) a hearing on the question of costs is dispensed with. The applicant’s application for costs is dismissed. The first respondent’s application for costs is dismissed.
An owners corporation sued a builder and developer for building defects, and the builder sought to apportion liability to other contractors. The court found the builder's defense of proportionate liability could not be applied. The court ordered the builder to pay the owners corporation's costs of the motion and proceedings.
APPEAL – leave to appeal – interlocutory order refusing to strike out defence – defence pleaded plaintiff’s claim apportionable – issue of general public importance – significant impact on course of trial TORT – duty of care – statutory duty for construction work – extension of duty to...
Before
Ward P at [1]; Adamson JA at [2]; Basten AJA at [18]
Hearing
1 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/00084603
Matched Strata Plans
SP84674
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D S Weinberger (Appellant) G A Sirtes SC / A Di Francesco (First and Second Respondents) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellant) M&A Lawyers (First and Second Respondents)
Orders
(1) Grant the appellant leave to appeal from the judgment in the Equity Division given on 23 February 2023. (2) Allow the appeal and set aside the orders in the Equity Division. (3) In place thereof: (a) pursuant to the amended notice of motion filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 15 December 2022, strike out paragraphs 20-24, 27-29A of the first amended technology and construction list response filed by the defendants on 21 September 2022; (b) order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s...
The applicants sought costs after successfully obtaining a compulsory strata manager appointment. The Tribunal determined that the Owners – Strata Plan No 5172 must pay a portion of Ms Finkelstein and Ms Cohen's costs due to the owners corporation's unsatisfactory functioning. The Tribunal ordered that the costs be recovered via a special levy excluding Lots 5 and 6.
Compulsory manager appointed: Name not recorded
COSTS – special circumstances
Before
R Alkadamani, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2021/00390857, 2021/00375058, 2021/00379332
Matched Strata Plans
SP5172
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel Mr Knoll AM (Ms Finkelstein) Solicitors DEA Lawyers (Ms Finkelstein) Mr Rodd – Ms Cohen
Orders
1. An order pursuant to section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) dispensing with a hearing. 2. An order that The Owners – Strata Plan No 5172 pay 65% of Annabel Sophie Finkelstein’s costs of and incidental to proceedings SC 21/45784, on the ordinary basis, such costs if not agreed to be assessed on the basis set out in the legal costs legislation, (as defined in s 3A of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)). 3. An order that The Owners –...
The Owners Corporation sought to amend its claim regarding building defects, which the primary judge granted. The builder and developer appealed this decision, arguing it introduced a new cause of action, but the court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and the original order would stand.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – residential building work – statutory warranties under Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – claims by owners corporation against builder and developer – whether claims statutory or contractual – whether single cause of action for breach of contract – whether amendments to...
Before
Ward P at [1]; Leeming JA at [2]; Simpson AJA at [108]
Hearing
2 March 2023
File Numbers
2022/00281148
Matched Strata Plans
SP90018
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: M Ashurst SC with L Corbett (Applicant) G Sirtes SC with D Hand (First Respondent) S Docker (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) DEA Lawyers Pty Ltd (First Respondent)...
Orders
1. Grant leave to appeal to Parkview. 2. Direct Parkview to file a notice of appeal in accordance with the draft notice of appeal but otherwise dispense with the rules as to service. 3. Appeal dismissed. 4. Dismiss the summons filed by The Quay. 5. Parkview and The Quay to pay the costs of the Owners Corporation of the proceedings in this Court. 6. The Quay to pay half of Parkview’s costs of filing the notice of appeal.
An Owners Corporation in North Sydney brought a claim against a builder and developer for building defects, seeking to prevent the respondents from using a proportionate liability defense. The tribunal decided that the proportionate liability defense could not be summarily dismissed because it was not considered so untenable that it could not possibly succeed.
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT — owners corporation sues builder and developer for building defects — breach of statutory duty imposed by s 37 Design and Building Practitioners Act — non-delegable duty by reason of s 39 Design and Building Practitioners Act — proportionate liability — apportionable claims...
Before
Rees J
Hearing
16 February 2023
File Numbers
2020/340673
Matched Strata Plans
SP84674
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Mr D Weinberger (Plaintiff) Mr GA Sirtes SC / Mr A Di Francesco (First and Second Defendants) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Plaintiff) M&A Lawyers (Defendants)
Orders
Dismiss application for strike out / summary dismissal.
The Owners Corporation sought to amend its claim regarding building defects, including new issues about the building's facade, window glazing, and stairwell pressurization systems. The tribunal decided to grant the amendment, finding that it did not constitute a new cause of action and that the defendants would not suffer undue prejudice. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the motion from a certain date.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – proposed amendment to Technology and Construction List Statement – whether amendment will introduce new causes of action under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – residential building work – whether separate causes of action for each breach of...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
11 August 2022
File Numbers
2016/257304
Matched Strata Plans
SP90018
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: G A Sirtes SC with D J Byrne (Plaintiff/Applicant) M Ashhurst SC with L Corbett (First Defendant/Respondent) S Docker (Second Defendant/Respondent) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers Pty Ltd...
Orders
Plaintiff granted leave to amend its Technology and Construction List Statement; defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of its Notice of Motion seeking leave
The Owners Corporation sought to amend its claim against the developer due to building defects. The tribunal decided not to dismiss the proceedings and allowed the Owners Corporation to amend its statement to include additional defects, as it found the case could succeed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – amendment – pleadings – application for leave to file Amended Technology and Construction List Statement – where new building defects alleged – whether defendants prejudiced by proposed amendments CIVIL PROCEDURE – whether the proceedings should be dismissed as against the...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
20 July 2022
File Numbers
2020/340673
Matched Strata Plans
SP84674
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Weinberger (Plaintiff) A Di Francesco (Defendants) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Plaintiff) M&A Lawyers (Defendants)
Orders
Application to dismiss proceedings against second defendant refused; plaintiff granted leave to file Amended Technology and Construction List Statement
A landlord sought compensation from their tenant for damage to a common property door. The tribunal found the tenant did not breach any duties and the damage was not the tenant's fault and dismissed the application.
LEASES AND TENANCIES – Where residential premises are part of strata premises - Tenant’s obligation in relation to common property of strata premises
Before
D Moujalli, Senior Member
Hearing
25 March 2022
File Numbers
RT 22/04477
Matched Strata Plans
SP96192
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
M Roberts (Agent) (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondents)
Orders
The application is dismissed.
The lot owner sought a declaration that by-law 29 was invalid. The tribunal found in favour of the lot owner and declared the by-law invalid. This was because the by-law was inconsistent with the legislation regarding the levying of contributions.
LAND LAW — Strata title — By-laws — By-law levying on contributions contrary to s 83(2) — Ultra vires — Declaration of invalidity
Before
P French, Senior Member
Hearing
25 February 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/42016
Matched Strata Plans
SP87145
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) Strata Specialist Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to ss 136(2) and 150(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 By-Law 29 of Strata Plan 87145 is declared invalid on and from 16 May 2018 being the date it was purportedly made. (2) Before 1 July 2022, The Owners – Strata Plan 87145 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 order 1 is...
An Owners Corporation sued a builder and developer alleging building defects. The tribunal considered motions about amending the statement of claim and striking it out. The tribunal deferred some decisions while making rulings on the meaning of 'construction work' and the interpretation of the Design and Building Practitioners Act.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) – proper construction of definition of “construction work” – proper construction of “otherwise having substantive control over the carrying out of any work” – proper construction of s 37(1) – whether “person” includes...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
20 May 2022
File Numbers
2020/340673
Matched Strata Plans
SP84674
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Weinberger (Plaintiff) A Di Francesco (Defendants) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Plaintiff) M&A Lawyers (Defendants)
Orders
A person “having substantive control over the carrying out of any work” for the purposes of clause (d) of the definition of “construction work” in s 36(1) of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) is a person who is in a position where it is able to control how the work is carried out; a “person” referred to in s 37(1) of the Act includes the owner of the land in relation to which the construction work is carried out
An applicant sought an order for a compulsory strata manager. The tribunal decided that while there were some issues, they were not serious enough to warrant replacing the owners corporation's management, so the application was dismissed. The Tribunal found the owners corporation was functioning adequately.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal found the existing owners corporation was not dysfunctional or negligent, so appointing a manager was not appropriate.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Strata managing agent — Compulsory appointment of strata managing agent
Before
M Deane, Senior Member
Hearing
23 March 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/46692
Matched Strata Plans
SP13631
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
M Green (Respondent) Solicitors: Madison Marcus Law Firm (Applicant)
Orders
(1) The application for the appointment of a compulsory strata manager under s 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 is dismissed. (2) Any application for costs by the Respondent under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 is to be made in the following manner: (a) The respondent is to file and serve written submissions (not exceeding 5 pages) on or before 14 days from the date of this decision. The submissions are to include whether or not the respondent consents to...
Foresight Construction Pty Ltd sought compensation from MRW Plumbing Group Pty Ltd for defective and incomplete plumbing work. The Tribunal found both parties owed money to each other and ordered the net amount be paid. The tribunal allowed a portion of the claim for defective work.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building — Claims between builder and sub-contractor —Builders claim for defective and/or incomplete works — Sub contractors claim for payment of retention monies — Whether the contract has been validly terminated by the builder
Before
J A Ringrose, General Member Pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, orders published on 31 January 2022 are amended on 15 February 2022 to read as follows:
Hearing
24 August 2021
File Numbers
HB 20/12607 HB 20/36334
Matched Strata Plans
SP80458
Parties
Developer v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: Mr Rizk (Respondent/ Cross Applicant) Solicitors: Darby Jones Lawyers (Respondent/ Cross Applicant) Mr De Marcellis (Applicant/Cross Respondent)
Orders
1. In matter HB 20/12607 the respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $12,339.24, being compensation for defective or incomplete work 2. In matter HB 20/36334 the respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $39,975.00, being retention payments found to be due and owing by the respondent to the applicant. Such sum is to be reduced by monies owing by the respondent to the applicant in matter No. HB 20/12607 3. Foresight Construction Pty Ltd is to pay MRW Plumbing Group Pty Ltd the sum...
An owner of multiple lots sought to avoid paying strata levies and associated legal fees. The tribunal found the applicant was liable to pay the unpaid levies and the fees as they were reasonably charged, therefore the application was dismissed.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Whether the applicant is liable to the respondent for charges relating to unpaid contributions
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC 21/29521
Matched Strata Plans
SP89564
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
A Attard (Applicant) N Stephenson (Strata manager) (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The proceedings are dismissed.
The applicant, a strata plan, sought orders related to trees on the respondent's land that obstructed views from their building. The court made orders based on the parties' agreement, requiring removal and replanting of the bamboo, and sharing the costs.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2A application – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether trees are planted to form a hedge – whether the obstruction is severe – strata plan as applicant in proceedings pursuant to Pt 2A of the Trees Act – whether an owner or occupier has lost access...
Before
Galwey AC
Hearing
21 October 2021
File Numbers
2021/203854
Matched Strata Plans
SP14416
Parties
Owners Corporation v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: L Sims (Applicant) T Ward (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Bick & Steele (Applicant) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
See orders at [13]
The applicant sought costs related to an appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application, determining that the respondent's offer to settle did not involve a genuine compromise. The Tribunal also decided that each party would pay their own costs.
COSTS — no question of principle
Before
G Curtin SC, Senior Member J Lucy, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2020/00371127 (AP 20/45309)
Matched Strata Plans
SP13631
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (No Appearance) Counsel: P J Gow (Respondent) Solicitors: James Tuite & Associates (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) Each party is to pay his and its own costs of the appeal.
A lot owner appealed a tribunal decision regarding water damage to their unit, alleging the owners corporation failed to maintain the common property. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, as the applicant's expert evidence was inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural directions and the tribunal found no error in the original decision.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — particular administrative bodies — NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence – Tribunal made order that Procedural Direction 3 apply to the proceedings – whether there was power to make order that Procedural Direction 3 apply to the...
Before
G Curtin SC, Senior Member J Lucy, Senior Member
Hearing
18 February and 19 March 2021
File Numbers
2020/00371127 (AP 20/45309)
Matched Strata Plans
SP13631
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: B Le Plastrier (Appellant) P J Gow (Respondent) Solicitors: Harrington Lawyers (Appellant) James Tuite & Associates (Respondent)
Orders
As the appellant has failed on all of his grounds of appeal, and as the respondent included a claim for costs of the appeal in its written submissions, we make the following orders: 1. Appeal dismissed. 2. If any party desires to make an application for costs of the appeal: (a) the applicant for costs is to lodge with the Appeal Panel and serve on the respondent to the costs application any written submissions of no more than five pages, and any evidence in support of the application, on or...
Google Reviews
12 Feb 2026
“In all the years of dealing with Strata Management organizations I have never experienced the insulting attitude, total lack of response , lack of understanding of the Act, the insidious attitude that they are in right always, which I have experienced with BRIGHT and DUGGAN, Sadly this was...”
30 Oct 2025
“Without hesitation, absolutely the worst strata managing agents I have ever had to deal with.
Have been trying to resolve a serious water ingress issue for the last 18 months and been virtually ignored the whole time. It is absolutely impossible to get an update.
You can never reach your...”
04 Nov 2025
“Dealing with Bright & Duggan has been an absolute nightmare. We’ve had major ongoing issues with the lift in our building, and not once have they properly acknowledged or addressed them. No matter how many times you call, they simply don’t respond. Every time you contact the office, you’re told...”
27 Oct 2025
“I have dealt with many Strata Managers over my 25 year position as Licensed real estate agent.
Recently I contacted Arihant Jain our Strata Manager to apply for the request and requirements to install a Air conditioner at our home at Cabarita. I found him very helpful and he took the time to...”
09 Sep 2025
“By far the worst strata managing agents I have had to deal with. Strata plan number 92852. You can never reach your managers or their assistants over the phone. You’re guaranteed to be asked to leave your name and number and then never get a call back. You send multiple emails and multiple...”