Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights
Registered as: KPR Managements Pty Ltd
Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights manages around 90 strata schemes totalling 1,700 lots across NSW. It has a broad geographic spread across 41 suburbs, with Fairfield as its largest market (17%). Its schemes have been involved in 4 tribunal and court decisions since 2021, none of which resulted in adverse findings.
Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights is part of the PICA Group, which collectively manages 6754 schemes (119161 lots) across 17 entities in NSW. See also: PICA Services Pty Ltd, BCS Strata Management Pty Ltd, Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd, Mason & Brophy Strata Management Pty. Limited, Robinson Strata Management Pty Ltd, LB Lanolin Pty Ltd, Sydney Unit Management Pty Ltd, Seyval Enterprises Pty Ltd, The 4JGG Pty Ltd, Glen & Joanne Mobbs Pty Ltd, Reif Group Pty Ltd, Vamana Management Pty Ltd, Green Planet Homes Pty Ltd, Spar Properties Pty Ltd, Jakes Global Services Pty Ltd, Moogen International Pty Ltd.
Counts (~) are rounded figures sourced from the NSW StrataHub register. Figures may include duplication in staged or mixed-use developments and reflect data at the time of the last register extract.
Portfolio
99% residential
SCA NSW
✓ Member
Fair Trading
✓ Not on register
Scheme Decisions
4 in portfolio since 2021
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 99%
Commercial 1%
Other 0%
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 17.6 lots. Most schemes fall in the 11–25 lot range, typical of small apartment blocks.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1965, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairfield 2165 | 16 | 302 | 17% | 6.7% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 8 | 259 | 9% | 1.8% | |
| Wakeley 2176 | 7 | 230 | 7% | 36.8% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 7 | 74 | 7% | 1.9% | |
| Cabramatta 2166 | 6 | 81 | 6% | 1.9% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 4 | 75 | 4% | 2.4% | |
| Carramar 2163 | 4 | 61 | 4% | 8.5% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 3 | 22 | 3% | 0.5% | |
| Riverwood 2210 | 2 | 42 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| Macquarie Fields 2564 | 2 | 36 | 2% | 1.7% |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 2 | 25 | 2% | 2.0% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 2 | 24 | 2% | 0.7% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 2 | 17 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 2 | 21 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| Edmondson Park 2174 | 1 | 105 | 1% | 3.3% | |
| Canley Vale 2166 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Barden Ridge 2234 | 1 | 19 | 1% | 5.3% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Fairfield Heights 2165 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Canley Heights 2166 | 1 | 17 | 1% | 5.6% | |
| Prestons 2170 | 1 | 17 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Casula 2170 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Mount Pritchard 2170 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 5.6% | |
| Fairfield West 2165 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 8.3% | |
| Bass Hill 2197 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| South Wentworthville 2145 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Glenfield 2167 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Bardwell Valley 2207 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Miller 2168 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 25.0% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Old Guildford 2161 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 11.1% | |
| Chester Hill 2162 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Revesby 2212 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.6% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Scheme Decisions
4
Supreme Court
0.0
Manager Adverse / 100
4.3
Total per 100 Schemes
4 tribunal or court decisions in managed schemes since 2021. In none of these was Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights named as a party — all involved schemes they manage. No adverse findings against the manager.
Orders Made 4
The Owners Corporation sought default judgment against Mr. Zhang, the developer, for defects. The court found that default judgment was not appropriate and extended the time for Mr. Zhang to comply with a previous order. The court dismissed the Owners Corporation's motion, with the developer's solicitor ordered to pay the costs.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – default judgment – procedural imbroglio – non-compliance with self-executing order – mistake by defendant’s solicitor – whether Court has power to extend time for compliance – where no ongoing prejudice to plaintiff and defendant’s solicitor submits to personal costs order
Before
Peden J
Hearing
19 September 2025
File Numbers
2018/382960
Matched Strata Plans
SP93543
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: A G Rogers (Plaintiff) M Condon SC with P Sharp (Defendant) Solicitors: Alexander Richards Lawyers (Plaintiff) MPM Legal (Defendant)
Orders
See [28]
The Owners Corporation sued the developer for building defects, and the developer disputed the rescission of a settlement deed. The tribunal found the Owners Corporation could proceed with the building defects claim, but only in relation to common property and decided the deed was effectively rescinded. The tribunal ordered the case to go to a referee.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – statutory warranty – proceedings for breach – whether proceedings were commenced by plaintiff owners corporation within the warranty period – whether effect of interim occupation certificate was to cause warranty period to commence –...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
22 to 25 March 2021, 2, 3, and 10 June 2021; 15 and 27 May 2025; further written submissions 28 May 2025 and 2 June 2025
File Numbers
2018/382960
Matched Strata Plans
SP93543
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: A G Rogers (22-25 March, 2-3, 10 June 2021 and 15 May 2025) and D S Allen (27 May 2025) (Plaintiff) P Moorhouse / J Tsang (22-25 March, 2-3, 10 June 2021) and M Klooster (15 and 27 May...
Orders
Plaintiff entitled to rescind Deed of Settlement; plaintiff commenced proceedings within the warranty period; plaintiff entitled to damages for defective works within the common property
The applicant sought to recover costs incurred due to an adjournment. The tribunal decided that the respondent had to pay $17,600 in costs thrown away by the adjournment. The reason was the late service of an expert report.
COSTS – costs thrown away by the adjournment – whether such costs confined to costs incurred prior to the adjournment – whether such costs include costs not yet incurred but which would not have been incurred but for the adjournment
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
22 to 25 March 2021; written submissions 30 & 31 March 2021 and 8 April 2021
File Numbers
2018/382960
Matched Strata Plans
SP93543
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: A G Rogers (Plaintiff) P Moorehouse with J Tsang (Defendant) Solicitors: Alexander Richards Lawyers (Plaintiff) MPM Legal (Defendant)
Orders
Costs thrown away by adjournment specified as a gross sum at $17,600
The Owners Corporation, a strata scheme, alleged building defects against the developer, Mr. Zhang. Zhang attempted to withdraw admissions, which the tribunal refused. The tribunal's decision prevented the withdrawal, allowing the case to proceed without an adjournment.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to withdraw admissions – admission in List Response that plaintiff owners corporation was entitled to benefit of statutory warranties – further admissions that defendant entered into a contract with the builder of the strata development and that the builder...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
22 March 2021
File Numbers
2018/382960
Matched Strata Plans
SP93543
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: A G Rogers (Plaintiff) P Moorehouse with J Tsang (Defendant) Solicitors: Alexander Richards Lawyers (Plaintiff) Marando Solicitors (Defendant)
Orders
Leave to withdraw admissions refused
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many strata schemes does Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights manage in NSW?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights manages around 90 strata schemes (around 1,700 total lots) across 41 suburbs in New South Wales, based on the NSW StrataHub register.
- What areas does Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights provide strata management in?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights is most active in Fairfield, Bankstown, Wakeley, covering 41 suburbs across NSW in total.
- Does Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights specialise in residential or commercial strata?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights manages almost entirely residential (99% residential lots).
- What is the average scheme size managed by Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights manages schemes averaging 18 lots each, compared to the NSW state average of approximately 20 lots per scheme.
- Is Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW?
- Yes, Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights is a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW.
- Does Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights have any NSW Fair Trading enforcement actions?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights does not appear on the NSW Fair Trading Name and Shame Register, indicating no recorded enforcement actions as of our last data update.
- How many NCAT or court cases involve schemes managed by Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights?
- 4 tribunal or court cases involving schemes managed by Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights appear in NSW caselaw records since 2021.
- What is Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights's NSW strata management licence number?
- Ace Body Corporate Management Canley Heights's NSW licence number is 10025091, issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.