Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,184 (95%)
Commercial 128 (3%)
Utility 100 (2%)
Other 3 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 20.7 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanmore 2048 | 101 | 909 | 47% | 55.8% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 11 | 394 | 5% | 4.8% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 11 | 362 | 5% | 2.4% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 9 | 603 | 4% | 1.9% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 6 | 90 | 3% | 1.6% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 5 | 96 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 5 | 105 | 2% | 1.2% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 4 | 55 | 2% | 1.7% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 4 | 58 | 2% | 2.0% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 3 | 183 | 1% | 0.6% |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 3 | 107 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 2 | 255 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 2 | 178 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Burwood Heights 2136 | 2 | 46 | 1% | 22.2% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 2 | 28 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Belfield 2191 | 2 | 14 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 2 | 10 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Rosebery 2018 | 1 | 266 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 1 | 65 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Thornleigh 2120 | 1 | 62 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 1 | 56 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Killara 2071 | 1 | 51 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Epping 2121 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Riverwood 2210 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Wareemba 2046 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Telopea 2117 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Canada Bay 2046 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Haberfield 2045 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 4.5% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Dundas Valley 2117 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 3.2% | |
| South Hurstville 2221 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% |
Tribunal & Court History
7
Total Cases
6
NCAT
0.9
Adverse per 100 Schemes
3.3
Total per 100 Schemes
7 cases since 2021. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 5 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 5
Dismissed 2
Building defects 3
Levies & contributions 1
Compulsory appointment 1
Insurance 1
The applicant, having lost an appeal, sought to avoid paying costs. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's applications and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent a fixed sum for costs, finding that there were special circumstances justifying a costs order.
Costs – costs of appeal where appeal dismissed – special circumstances established – whether appropriate to make a lump sum order for costs – quantification of lump sum amount – costs awarded
Before
Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President H J Dixon SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2025/00034387
Matched Strata Plans
SP6006
Parties
Lot Owner v Third Party
Representation
Solicitors: Appellant (Self-Represented) Department of Communities and Justice, Legal (Respondent)
Orders
(1) In accordance with s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), a hearing in relation to the application for costs is dispensed with. (2) The recusal application is refused. (3) The application pursuant to s 53 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) seeking an amendment to the respondent’s submissions requiring the addition of the names of the solicitors and their signatures is dismissed. (4) The appellant’s application pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the...
The applicants, who owned multiple dwellings, sought indemnity under home building insurance for defective works. The tribunal found the applicants were developers and therefore excluded from coverage. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the applications.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — HBCI insurance policy –– definition of developer
Before
Dr K M George, Senior Member
Hearing
21 October 2025
File Numbers
2024/00423518 2024/00423549 2024/00423556
Matched Strata Plans
SP81837
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: Mr M Auld (applicants) Mr S Ahmed (respondent) Solicitors: William Cotsis & Associates (applicants) Gillis Delaney Lawyers (respondent)
Orders
1 Application 2024/00423518 is dismissed. 2 Application 2024/00423549 is dismissed. 3 Application 2024/00423556 is dismissed. 4 If a party seeks an order for costs: (1) An application is to be filed and served, supported by evidence and submissions not exceeding 3 pages in length within 14 days of the date of these orders; (2) Evidence and submissions in response to the costs application not exceeding 3 pages in length are to be filed and served within 28 days of the date of these orders;...
The applicant sought to enforce original work orders for building defects. The tribunal refused the respondent's request for more time to complete the work. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $500,000 in compensation.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act – orders not complied with - renewal of proceedings – whether Tribunal considering application for renewal can entertain an application for an extension of time for compliance with the orders CIVIL PROCEDURE – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s...
Before
D Robertson, Senior Member
Hearing
19 August 2024
File Numbers
2023/00390118 (formerly HB 23/28368)
Matched Strata Plans
SP93804
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: R Thrift (Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) Spark Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The respondent’s application for a further extension of time to comply with the orders made on 11 September 2019 is refused. (2) The applicant is given leave to renew the proceedings, as the orders made on 11 September 2019 have not been complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal, as extended on 12 July 2021. (3) The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $500,000 immediately. (4) If either party seeks an order in relation to the costs of the proceedings, they may...
The Owners Corporation sought to recover unpaid levies from a lot owner. The tribunal found in favor of the Owners Corporation, ordering the defendant to pay the outstanding contributions, as well as interest. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Contributions by owners – Recovery of unpaid contributions and interest – Unpaid strata levies – Notice of Levy
Before
Andronos SC DCJ
Hearing
8, 30 November 2023; 30 April; 1, 2 May (further written submissions); 7 and 14 June 2024 (further written submissions)
File Numbers
2021/00070005
Matched Strata Plans
SP11245
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: Mr T Bland (plaintiff) Solicitors: Strathfield Law (plaintiff) Other: Defendant (self-represented)
Orders
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $62,834.38. (2) With respect to interest under s 86 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW): (a) Direct the plaintiff to calculate interest in accordance with these reasons and to provide its calculations to the Court and to the defendant by 5pm on 26 June 2024. (b) If the sum of interest is not agreed, direct the defendant to provide to the plaintiff and to the Court any submission, limited to 2 pages and only as to...
The applicant appealed a previous decision regarding a compulsory strata manager. The tribunal dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to appear at the hearing. The Tribunal then ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
COSTS – award for costs where appeal dismissed for non-appearance of appellant – special circumstances – appellant failing to appear at hearing of appeal despite expressly requesting a hearing – failure to comply with duty under s 36(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) –...
Before
M Harrowell, Deputy President G Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00441921
Matched Strata Plans
SP6006
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant: No appearance but written costs submissions Respondent: Shane Williamson, written costs submissions Solicitors Respondent: Williamson Lawyers
Orders
1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of the costs application. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of this appeal fixed in an amount of $7,345.00. 3. The amount of the costs is to be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of these orders.
A lot owner sought to have a compulsory strata manager appointed because of dissatisfaction with how the strata scheme was run. The tribunal decided not to appoint a manager, finding that the owners corporation understood its obligations and was taking steps to resolve the issues. The tribunal dismissed the appeal of the original decision.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal declined to appoint a manager, giving the owners corporation time to address the issues.
LAND LAW-Strata title-whether compulsory strata managing agent should be appointed-failure by owners corporation to comply with provisions of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). APPEAL-no error of law established-no appellable error of fact established.
Before
P Durack SC, Senior Member G Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
25 October 2022
File Numbers
2022/00133089
Matched Strata Plans
SP6006
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (Self Represented) Respondent (No Appearance)
Orders
1 Leave to appeal is refused. 2 The appeal is dismissed.
An owners corporation sought work orders against a builder and developer for building defects. The tribunal upheld the builder's offer in a calderbank letter and varied the original costs orders. The applicant was ordered to pay costs after a certain date, and the respondents to pay costs before that date.
HOME BUILDING - basis of costs orders with remaining areas of dispute but largely by consent - effect of calderbank offer
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member A R Boxall, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2020/00371063 (AP 20/41286)
Matched Strata Plans
SP94514
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: M Klooster (Appellants) Solicitors: G & S Law Group (Appellants) Bannermans Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal is granted, to the extent that leave is required. (2) The appeal is allowed. (3) In lieu of Order 1 made 4 September 2020 in HB 18/47472, order as follows: (a) the first and third respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed up to and including 11 March 2019; (b) the applicant is to pay the first and third respondents' costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis as agreed or assessed after 11 March 2019...