Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 10,163 (89%)
Commercial 273 (2%)
Retirement 17 (0%)
Utility 874 (8%)
Other 66 (1%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 15.4 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 1961, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashfield 2131 | 111 | 1,841 | 15% | 24.4% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 54 | 961 | 7% | 19.1% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 37 | 415 | 5% | 22.4% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 35 | 492 | 5% | 23.2% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 30 | 480 | 4% | 14.4% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 28 | 501 | 4% | 22.0% | |
| Concord 2137 | 20 | 279 | 3% | 10.8% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 19 | 174 | 3% | 9.7% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 17 | 396 | 2% | 5.2% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 17 | 255 | 2% | 7.4% |
| Balmain 2041 | 16 | 581 | 2% | 12.6% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 15 | 223 | 2% | 11.6% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 14 | 189 | 2% | 5.4% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 12 | 136 | 2% | 5.2% | |
| Russell Lea 2046 | 11 | 104 | 1% | 16.9% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 10 | 193 | 1% | 8.7% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 10 | 87 | 1% | 6.8% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 8 | 145 | 1% | 6.2% | |
| Stanmore 2048 | 8 | 110 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 8 | 53 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 7 | 103 | 1% | 6.8% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 7 | 75 | 1% | 6.7% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 7 | 53 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| North Strathfield 2137 | 7 | 46 | 1% | 8.4% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 6 | 99 | 1% | 4.1% | |
| Hurlstone Park 2193 | 6 | 63 | 1% | 10.7% | |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 6 | 46 | 1% | 8.1% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 6 | 51 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Lewisham 2049 | 6 | 53 | 1% | 14.0% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 6 | 53 | 1% | 7.7% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 5 | 374 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Birchgrove 2041 | 5 | 180 | 1% | 14.3% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 5 | 146 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 5 | 109 | 1% | 6.8% | |
| Haberfield 2045 | 5 | 47 | 1% | 22.7% | |
| Canada Bay 2046 | 5 | 44 | 1% | 17.9% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 5 | 27 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 4 | 113 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 4 | 67 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Chiswick 2046 | 4 | 82 | 1% | 9.8% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 4 | 57 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 4 | 55 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 4 | 35 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Wareemba 2046 | 4 | 31 | 1% | 13.3% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 4 | 23 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 3 | 68 | 0% | 7.3% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 3 | 78 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 3 | 69 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 3 | 42 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 3 | 41 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Concord West 2138 | 3 | 41 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 3 | 32 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 3 | 21 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 2 | 95 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 2 | 60 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 2 | 55 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Epping 2121 | 2 | 71 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 2 | 36 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 2 | 36 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 2 | 33 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Lavender Bay 2060 | 2 | 27 | 0% | 5.1% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 2 | 35 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Enfield 2136 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 5.7% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 2 | 26 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Cabarita 2137 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Huntleys Cove 2111 | 2 | 34 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Enmore 2042 | 2 | 28 | 0% | 6.5% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Belfield 2191 | 2 | 17 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 2 | 18 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 4.8% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 2 | 11 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 2 | 9 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Regents Park 2143 | 1 | 47 | 0% | 2.1% | |
| Breakfast Point 2137 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Forest Lodge 2037 | 1 | 27 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Woolwich 2110 | 1 | 25 | 0% | 8.3% | |
| Revesby 2212 | 1 | 23 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Ultimo 2007 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Mcmahons Point 2060 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Bardwell Valley 2207 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Roseville 2069 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Kellyville 2155 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Putney 2112 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Naremburn 2065 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Gymea 2227 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Chipping Norton 2170 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Lane Cove West 2066 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Beaconsfield 2015 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Kingsgrove 2208 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Toongabbie 2146 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| West Pymble 2073 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Waverton 2060 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Ingleburn 2565 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.6% |
Tribunal & Court History
7
Total Cases
2
NCAT
4
Supreme Court
1
Court of Appeal
0.1
Adverse per 100 Schemes
0.9
Total per 100 Schemes
7 cases since 2021. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 6 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 6
Dismissed 1
Common property 3
Insurance 2
Building defects 1
By-law enforcement 1
Repair & maintenance 1
The owners corporation appealed a decision requiring it to pay damages to a lot owner for water damage, and for costs. The Tribunal found that the legal costs associated with a pre-litigation mediation were not recoverable as damages and reduced the amount awarded. The Tribunal also sent the issue of costs back to the original court for determination.
LAND LAW – Strata title – Duty to maintain and repair common property – Liability of owners corporation for foreseeable losses sustained by reason of a failure to maintain and repair common property - Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 clause 60 – Parties to pay their own costs associated...
Before
D Robertson, Senior Member G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
22 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/00205759
Matched Strata Plans
SP21563
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: M Forgacs (Respondent) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellant) JS Mueller & Co (Respondent)
Orders
1. To the extent necessary grant leave to appeal; 2. Allow the appeal; 3. Vary order (1) made on 30 May 2023 in proceedings SC 22/47837 by substituting the sum of $7,019.64 for the sum of $10,169.29; 4. Set aside the decision on costs made on 12 July 2023 in proceedings SC 22/47837; 5. Remit to the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal all questions of costs of proceedings SC 22/47837 for consideration in light of this decision. 6. Either party may, within 14 days of the date of...
The owners corporation sought orders regarding damage to common property and a by-law. The Tribunal ordered the lot owner to undertake certain work to repair the damage and also ordered that a common property by-law be made to reflect the works. Each party was granted some success, and further submissions regarding costs were to be filed.
STRATA SCHEMES – works by lot owner – whether work authorised – whether works caused water penetration STRATA SCHEMES - unreasonable refusal to make a common property rights by-law - failure to provide a written consent to the making of a Special By-Law
Before
R Alkadamani, Senior Member
Hearing
9 September 2022
File Numbers
SC 22/09428
Matched Strata Plans
SP19341
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Mr Bannerman (Applicant) Mr G Farland and Mr P Lin (Respondent) Solicitors: Bannerman Lawyers (Applicant) Richard Harvey & Associates (Respondent)
Orders
1. Pursuant to s 149 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 the Tribunal prescribes the making of a common property rights by-law in and to the effect of the by-law referred to at exhibit 1, pages 153 - 157 inclusive. 2. Order the owners corporation to do all acts necessary to register the common property rights by-law referred to in the preceding order pursuant to s 246 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). 3. Order pursuant to s 132 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015...
The Owners – Strata Plan 87265 v Saaib; Alexandrova v The Owners – Strata Plan 87265 [2022] NSWCA 63
An Owners Corporation sued a builder and an insurance broker regarding building defects. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the builder. The Court of Appeal found that the Owners Corporation's claim against the insurance broker failed because they could not prove the broker's actions caused their loss.
APPEALS – from findings of fact – primary judge assessed credibility and reliability of two witnesses – findings not expressed to be based on demeanour – applicable test for appellate intervention – whether primary judge gave sufficient weight to combined effect of relevant circumstances...
Before
Basten JA at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [105]; Gleeson JA at [211].
Hearing
1 and 2 December 2021
File Numbers
2021/83984; 2021/140048
Matched Strata Plans
SP87265
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Matter 2021/83984: Counsel: N Kidd SC / S Ahmed (Appellant) S Lawrance SC / M Fernandes (Respondent) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Appellant) Centurion Lawyers (Respondent) Matter 2021/140048:...
Orders
The Owners Corporation’s appeal (2021/83984) (1) Allow the appeal. (2) Set aside the orders made in the Equity Division on 1 March 2021 as varied on 21 April 2021. (3) In place thereof, (a) give judgment for the Owners Corporation against Mr Saaib in the sum of $3,425,583.54, such judgment to take effect from 1 March 2021; (b) order that Mr Saaib pay the Owners Corporation’s costs of the trial. (4) Order that Mr Saaib pay the appellant’s costs in this Court. Ms Alexandrova’s appeal...
A purchaser sought to rescind a contract for the sale of a commercial strata unit due to a difference in the property's configuration. The tribunal found the purchaser validly rescinded the contract, and was entitled to the return of their deposit.
CONTRACTS—Contract for the sale of land — Construction — Purchase of strata title unit by description — Building as constructed materially different from draft strata plan attached to contract — Purchaser entitled to rescind and return of deposit
Before
Lindsay J
Hearing
26, 27 and 28 October 2021
File Numbers
2020/00255897
Matched Strata Plans
SP36
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: Plaintiff/cross defendants: MT Fernandes First Defendant/cross claimant: AJ Greinke Second Defendant: Submitting Appearance Solicitors: Plaintiff/cross defendants: ST Lawyers First...
Orders
The plaintiff, as purchaser of a commercial strata title unit “off the plan” (by description, prior to construction), was entitled to rescind the contract, and to recover a deposit paid under the contract, when the unit, as constructed, was materially different from the draft strata plan attached to the contract.
The applicant sought to set aside a $10 million consent judgment based on alleged illegality. The tribunal declined the application, finding that the judgment resulted from a settlement agreement, not an illegal agreement. Consequently, the Court dismissed the motion to set aside the judgment.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – application to set aside consent judgment on the ground of illegality – dispute concerning loan agreement – where money originally came from China – where lender first transferred money to borrower in China – where borrower then used an internet business...
Before
Parker J
Hearing
19 March 2021; further written submissions ending 26 March 2021
File Numbers
2018/244781
Matched Strata Plans
SP57
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: A Macauley (Applicants) Solicitors: Hugh & Associates Lawyers (Applicants)
Orders
See [208]
An Owners Corporation sued a lot owner, Mr. Saaib, regarding disputes from the construction of townhouses. The tribunal dismissed the Owners Corporation's claim and awarded the lot owner indemnity costs from July 31, 2019 because Mr. Saaib had made a valid offer of compromise under the rules. The court then refused to stay enforcement of the costs order.
COSTS – exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event – offers of compromise – walk away offers made by defendant in early and late stages of proceedings – no real element of compromise in early offer – evidence available at date of later offer raised significant difficulties for...
Before
Henry J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2016/382268
Matched Strata Plans
SP87265
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: N Kidd SC with S Ahmed (Plaintiff) S Lawrance with M Fernandes (First Defendant) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Plaintiff 2016/382268) Centurion Lawyers (First Defendant)
Orders
(1) Order (2) made on 1 March 2021 be varied so as to provide: Subject to any costs orders already made in the proceedings, the Plaintiff to pay the First Defendant’s costs: (a) up to and including 30 July 2019 as assessed or agreed on the ordinary basis; and (b) thereafter on an indemnity basis. (2) The Plaintiff to pay the First Defendant’s costs of this application on the ordinary basis.
The Owners Corporation sued the builder and an insurance broker regarding building defects in their strata scheme. The tribunal dismissed the claim against the builder. However, it found the insurance broker liable for misleading conduct and ordered her to pay damages for the cost of rectifying the defects.
AGENCY – whether implied actual authority to enter building contract – where builder did not sign contract – where numerous documents signed in name of builder – whether builder authorised nephew to enter into contract on his behalf – no authority found from the circumstances BUILDING AND...
Before
Henry J
Hearing
3–7 February 2020, 11, 12 March 2020
File Numbers
2016/382268; 2019/235463
Matched Strata Plans
SP87265
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: N Kidd SC with S Ahmed (Plaintiff 2016/382268 and 2019/235463) S Lawrance with M Fernandes (First Defendant 2016/382268) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Plaintiff 2016/382268 and 2019/235463)...
Orders
In proceeding 2016/382268: (1) The Plaintiff’s summons filed 20 December 2016 be dismissed. (2) The Plaintiff pay the First Defendant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. In proceeding 2019/235463: (1) There be judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $3,425,583.54. (2) The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
Google Reviews
07 Jan 2026
“Conti Strata have been the Strata Managers for my apartment for over 15 years. In that time I have only ever experienced exceptional service from every staff member.
The team is very well educated in all aspects of strata management and the Owner’s Corporation has never been let down by them in...”
20 Jan 2026
“Conti Strata have been the strata management company of a property I purchased several years ago. When we were doing our due diligence on the property one of the things our lawyer reviewed closely was how the Strata had been managed. The lawyer was legitimately impressed and advised the property...”
22 Dec 2025
“The Conti Strata team help our Strata committee with our Kirrawee Apartments and over the past 4 years I as Chair have been most impressed with the Guidance and support, we receive.
Enquiries and requests are dealt with promptly by all the team members and guidance around governance issues is...”
16 Dec 2025
“I have been working with Conti Strata for several years now and have found their management ability first class. They are not only professional in the way they conduct their business, they are attentive to all aspects of Strata management. I would have no hesitation in recommending Conti Strata...”
04 Nov 2025
“We selected Conti as part of comparing 3 quotes to manage our small block. This was 4 years ago and we never looked back. Professional, consistent, competent and proactive. Having been on several strata committees over the years, Conti is undoubtedly the best strata management company I’ve ever...”