Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 2,655 (89%)
Commercial 270 (9%)
Utility 32 (1%)
Other 19 (1%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 45.1 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 1965, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bankstown 2200 | 8 | 370 | 12% | 1.9% | |
| Collaroy 2097 | 4 | 10 | 6% | 2.5% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 3 | 35 | 5% | 1.4% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 2 | 446 | 3% | 0.4% | |
| Cromer 2099 | 2 | 220 | 3% | 4.1% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 2 | 92 | 3% | 0.4% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 2 | 108 | 3% | 0.6% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 2 | 62 | 3% | 2.6% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 2 | 21 | 3% | 0.5% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 1 | 271 | 2% | 2.4% |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 1 | 256 | 2% | 2.0% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 1 | 111 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Parklea 2768 | 1 | 98 | 2% | 50.0% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 1 | 86 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 1 | 74 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 1 | 68 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 58 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 1 | 55 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 1 | 53 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| North Rocks 2151 | 1 | 50 | 2% | 2.9% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 46 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 1 | 42 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 39 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| North Narrabeen 2101 | 1 | 38 | 2% | 4.2% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 34 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 1 | 28 | 2% | 0.1% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 1 | 19 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Beecroft 2119 | 1 | 19 | 2% | 2.3% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 1 | 17 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 1 | 13 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 13 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 1 | 11 | 2% | 0.1% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 10 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Cheltenham 2119 | 1 | 10 | 2% | 16.7% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 10 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Naremburn 2065 | 1 | 9 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 1 | 9 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Miranda 2228 | 1 | 8 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Warriewood 2102 | 1 | 8 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 1 | 8 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 1 | 7 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 1 | 6 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Sutherland 2232 | 1 | 6 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 1 | 6 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Fairlight 2094 | 1 | 5 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 1 | 4 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 4 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 1 | 3 | 2% | 0.2% |
Tribunal & Court History
5
Total Cases
1
NCAT
4
Supreme Court
1.5
Adverse per 100 Schemes
7.6
Total per 100 Schemes
5 cases since 2021. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 4 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 4
Dismissed 1
Building defects 2
Insurance 1
The Owners Corporation sought indemnity under an insurance policy for building defects. The court found that the claims were made outside the policy's time limitations. The court answered 'no' to all questions, effectively dismissing the Owners Corporation's claims.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – insurance – construction of home warranty insurance policy – separate questions – whether letter sent in 2012 constitutes a claim under the policy – whether letters sent in 2022 constitute claims within time under the policy – effect of...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
28 April 2025; further written submissions 6 May 2025
File Numbers
2013/386026
Matched Strata Plans
SP81376
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: M A Ashhurst SC / D S Allen (Plaintiff) M R Pesman SC (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Plaintiff) Mills Oakley (Third Defendant)
Orders
Separate questions each answered “no”
The applicant sought damages from the respondent (Kazzi) related to interest incurred on borrowings due to building defects. The tribunal determined that the applicant was entitled to this interest, and the order was made. This was due to the respondent's admitted breach of duty under the DBP Act.
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – interest – award of as damages – Hungerfords interest damages – where breach of duty under Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 admitted in relation to two defects – where such breaches caused delay in registration of strata plan and thus delay in sales of units...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
6 July 2023; further written submissions 14 and 21 July 2023
File Numbers
2020/7703
Matched Strata Plans
SP86807
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: A Cameron (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants) J Horowitz (Defendants/Cross-Claimants) Solicitors: Fortis Law Pty Limited (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants) Domain Legal Pty Limited (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)
Orders
Cross-claimants entitled to Hungerfords damages as against second cross-defendant
The Owners Corporation sought leave to amend its claim against the builder of the strata development in relation to cladding installed on the building's facade. The tribunal granted leave to amend, but required the Owners Corporation to provide an expert report about the cladding. The Owners Corporation was ordered to pay part of the builder's costs.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Originating process — Amendment — claim under Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) — Where no evidence of non-compliance with the Building Code of Australia — Discretionary matters — Where delay in bringing application — Where no evidence of irremediable prejudice —...
Before
Ball J
Hearing
5 May 2023
File Numbers
2016/365684
Matched Strata Plans
SP86807
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: T Lynch SC with DJ Byrne (Plaintiff) DS Weinberger (Defendants) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers (Plaintiff) Dentons (Defendants)
Orders
(1) Leave be given to the plaintiff to file an amended technology and construction list statement in the form provided to my Associate on 1 May 2023 (the List Statement); (2) Order (1) is subject to the plaintiff by 15 June 2023 filing and serving a report from Credwell Consulting or some other suitably qualified expert which expresses the opinion that the Cladded Walls (as defined in the List Statement) do not comply with the Building Code of Australia 2012 for the reasons set out in...
An owners corporation sought to amend its claim against the developer and builder regarding building defects, specifically cladding. The tribunal dismissed the motion to amend the Home Building Act claim due to lack of evidence and delay, and the Design and Building Practitioners Act claim because it was inadequately pleaded. The court ordered the owners corporation to file a new pleading and set a timetable for the defendants to respond.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Originating process — Amendment — Disallowance of amendment — claim under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s18B CIVIL PROCEDURE — Originating process — Amendment — Disallowance of amendment — claim under Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) — opportunity to replead
Before
Ball J
Hearing
13 December 2022
File Numbers
2016/365684
Matched Strata Plans
SP86807
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: TW Lynch SC with D Byrne (Applicant | Plaintiff) D Weinberger (Defendants | Respondents) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers (Applicant | Plaintiff) Dentons Australia (Defendants | Respondents)
Orders
(1) Order that the further amended notice of motion filed in court on 13 December 2022 be dismissed with costs; (2) Direct that by 3 March 2023 the plaintiff serve on the defendants any proposed amended summons and amended list statement that includes a claim against the first defendant under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW); (3) Direct that by 10 March 2023 the defendants notify the plaintiff whether it objects to the filing of any such amended document; (4) If the...
The applicants sought the appointment of a strata managing agent to facilitate building works. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the applicants, finding that the respondents acted unreasonably by opposing the appointment. As a result, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The Tribunal found that Burbank and Gornoa acted unreasonably in opposing the appointment of a strata managing agent, leading to the case.
COSTS – Whether there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC 20/22723; SC 20/32508
Matched Strata Plans
SP85312
Parties
Lot Owner v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Knoll AM (First, Second and Third Applicants) Solicitors: Strata Specialist Lawyers (First, Second and Third Applicants) Priority Business Lawyers (Second and Third Respondents)
Orders
(1) A hearing is dispensed with in relation to the costs of proceedings SC 20/22723 and proceedings SC 20/32508. (2) The second and third respondents are to pay the costs of the first, second and third applicants of proceedings SC 20/22723 and proceedings SC 20/32508 as agreed or assessed.
Google Reviews
03 Aug 2024
“Top Tier service company. My family and I have been getting the best service from Executive Strata from 3yrs now, we moved because we needed a fresh start and Executive Strata did exactly that. From the beginning they have assisted in Electricity, internet and water issues. We’ve held both our...”
12 Oct 2022
“An amazing service & company! Would highly recommend and I have already recommend Paul and the team at Executive Strata to all my friends on strata committees!
We were pretty much dumped with these guys at the begging of our strata scheme in 2020 of which we were not happy though we gave them a...”
30 Jul 2025
“This is a big shout out to Nik & Diego of Executive. These guys are the consumate professionals. They constantly go above and beyond for their clients and it is a true joy to have them and their team as building managers for my site.”
13 Apr 2025
“I have been in my property for nearly 18 months now. Executive strata have been very professional, and Simone has gone ABOVE and BEYOND this entire time. I adore her dedication.
Having owned in other strata’s previously, it’s nice to know my calls, and emails are answered within the day!”
25 Aug 2024
“We have been fortunate to have Executive Strata over the past 4 years and they have been very helpful and professional. We like their family friendly approach and their willingness to work with us owners from building management to strata. From being available on call for emergencies to helping...”