Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,184 (89%)
Commercial 68 (1%)
Utility 80 (2%)
Other 373 (8%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 11.8 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randwick 2031 | 34 | 360 | 9% | 4.2% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 32 | 319 | 8% | 6.5% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 30 | 241 | 8% | 7.2% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 30 | 240 | 8% | 6.5% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 29 | 250 | 7% | 9.4% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 26 | 498 | 7% | 8.6% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 23 | 199 | 6% | 3.4% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 20 | 154 | 5% | 7.8% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 17 | 252 | 4% | 8.0% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 14 | 128 | 4% | 7.3% |
| Maroubra 2035 | 13 | 228 | 3% | 2.0% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 11 | 86 | 3% | 4.4% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 8 | 75 | 2% | 4.1% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 8 | 86 | 2% | 4.4% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 7 | 56 | 2% | 4.8% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 6 | 146 | 2% | 7.9% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 6 | 141 | 2% | 1.7% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 6 | 73 | 2% | 5.9% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 5 | 74 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 5 | 57 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Centennial Park 2021 | 5 | 49 | 1% | 9.3% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 5 | 54 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 5 | 36 | 1% | 5.0% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 4 | 325 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 4 | 25 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Queens Park 2022 | 4 | 20 | 1% | 12.1% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 4 | 12 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 4 | 8 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 2 | 145 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 2 | 39 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 2 | 36 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 2 | 39 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 2 | 27 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 2 | 23 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 2 | 26 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Watsons Bay 2030 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 8.0% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 30 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| South Coogee 2034 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Forest Lodge 2037 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| South Hurstville 2221 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Malabar 2036 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.8% |
Tribunal & Court History
7
Total Cases
5
NCAT
1.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.8
Total per 100 Schemes
2
Compulsory Manager Appts
7 cases since 2022. Of these, 4 resulted in substantive orders (including 2 compulsory manager appointments). The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 5
Dismissed 2
Common property 2
Repair & maintenance 2
Compulsory appointment 2
By-law enforcement 1
The tenants appealed a decision, seeking compensation for alleged water usage charges. The tribunal found there was an error of law, but dismissed the appeal because the tenants' claim wasn't supported by sufficient evidence, and would not have resulted in any compensation anyway.
LANDLORD and TENANT - RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – no grounds termination – alleged retaliatory eviction – lack of utility with tenants’ vacation – water usage charges alleged breach - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 33, 85, 115
Before
G Burton SC, Senior Member G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
21 May 2024
File Numbers
2024/00109377
Matched Strata Plans
SP77480
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Appellant (Self-Represented) M Muscat (The Agency) (Agent) (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Vincent Desmond Craig is added as an appellant. (2) The time for filing the Notice of Appeal is extended to 22 March 2024. (3) Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
The applicant, the owners of a strata plan, sought orders to address view obstruction caused by a bamboo hedge on the respondents' property. The tribunal found that the hedge severely obstructed views, and ordered the respondents to prune the hedge to a specific height at their expense twice a year.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – bamboo – view obstruction severe – sunlight obstruction – balance between redemption of ocean views and privacy – pruning ordered
Before
Douglas AC
Hearing
04 March 2024
File Numbers
2023/360210
Matched Strata Plans
SP4015
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: B Gallifuoco (Applicant) K Mezinec (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: McCullough Robertson Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
The Court orders: (1) Within 30 days of the date of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall prune the bamboo hedge adjacent to their western boundary, to a height not exceeding 3.5 metres above the level of the respondents’ swimming pool coping. (2) During November 2024, and during May and November of each subsequent year, the respondents, at their expense, shall prune the bamboo hedge adjacent to their western boundary, to a height not exceeding 3.5 metres above...
The lessees sought the return of rent and security bond payments, alleging misleading conduct by the lessors in a retail shop lease. The tribunal found in favour of the lessees, determining the lessors made misleading representations and ordering repayment of the requested amount. The tribunal dismissed the lessors' claims.
LEASES AND TENANCIES — Retail leases — Misleading or deceptive conduct LEASES AND TENANCIES — Retail leases — Repairs — Lessor’s duty – whether the duty extends to part of the common property - whether the lessee is not liable to pay rent where complaint about the condition of the common property
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
03 October 2023
File Numbers
COM 23/24375; COM 23/30593
Matched Strata Plans
SP3573
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Cara Stella Bianchetto Herbert and Lachlan Heathcote Hemphill (self-represented) Yuen Ha Lee and Ronan Delaney (self-represented)
Orders
1. The respondents in proceedings COM 23/24375 are to repay $11,325.61 to the applicants immediately. 2. Proceedings COM 23/30593 are dismissed.
The owners corporation sought a penalty against a lot owner for by-law breaches. The tribunal found the lot owner breached the by-laws regarding damage to common property and offensive behaviour, and imposed a monetary penalty. The Tribunal deferred a decision on the owners corporation's cost application, directing further submissions from the parties.
Compulsory manager appointed: Mr O’Neill
LAND LAW---Strata title---Civil penalty---s 147 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015---Service of notices to comply with by-laws---Whether contravention of notices to comply established---Applicable penalty
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
30 March 2023; written submissions to 21 April 2023
File Numbers
SC 22/55814
Matched Strata Plans
SP84716
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: None Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant)
Orders
(1) The respondent, Delmont Purcell, is to pay the applicant, The Owners-Strata Plan No 84716, the amount of $1,320 by 14 days from the date of this decision. (2) Any costs application by the applicant is to be determined in the following manner: (a) Applicant to file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent, by person or by post, costs submissions and documents by 14 days from the date of this decision. (b) Respondent to file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant, by person or...
The applicants sought removal of an encroaching brick wall and footing. The tribunal ordered the applicant to remove the wall, and the creation of an easement, plus payment of $1 compensation. This was based on the parties' agreement reached at a conciliation conference.
ENCROACHMENT OF WALL AND FOOTING – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Before
Peatman AC
Hearing
Conciliation conference on 7 September 2022
File Numbers
2022/171965
Matched Strata Plans
SP1621
Parties
Third Party v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: T Sattler (Solicitor) (Applicant) J Hones (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Sattler & Associates Pty Limited (Applicant) Hones Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
See orders below in [11]
A lot owner in an apartment building sought damages and a compulsory strata manager due to water damage and a failure of the owners corporation to repair common property. The tribunal dismissed the damages claim as the owner was out of time, but appointed a compulsory strata manager to ensure the water ingress issues were repaired.
Compulsory manager appointed: O’Neill Strata Management Pty Ltd for 24 months
LAND LAW---Strata title---Duty of owners corporation to repair common property---Breach---Damages---Limitation period---Knowledge of loss---Whether applicant within limitation period---s 106 (6) Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) LAND LAW---Strata title---Compulsory appointment of strata...
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
29 June 2022
File Numbers
SC 22/15309
Matched Strata Plans
SP77480
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Applicant (self-represented) L Farhim (Secretary, Strata Committee) (Respondent)
Orders
1. Pursuant to s 237 (1) (a) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) O’Neill Strata Management Pty Ltd is appointed compulsory strata managing agent of The Owners-Strata Plan No 77480 to exercise all functions of the owners corporation including the functions in s 237 (2) (a) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) for a period of two (2) years from the date of the making of this order. 2. The application is otherwise dismissed.
Lot owners sought an order for a compulsory strata manager due to concerns about the Owners Corporation's management. The tribunal decided to dismiss the application, as it wasn't satisfied the OC was dysfunctional enough to justify appointing a strata manager. The tribunal acknowledged there was conflict but didn't believe it warranted the appointment.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal found the owners corporation was functioning satisfactorily and that a compulsory strata manager was not justified.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Appointment of compulsory strata manager — Whether grounds for compulsory appointment established
Before
G Kinsey, General Member
Hearing
18 November 2021 and 28 January 2022
File Numbers
SC21/37065
Matched Strata Plans
SP3573
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
First and Second Applicant (Self-represented) Y Lee (Respondent)
Orders
1 The application for the appointment of a compulsory strata manager under section 237 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 is dismissed.
Google Reviews
25 Aug 2025
“UPDATE SINCE REVIEW - PORTAL ACCESS REVOKED - Since writing this review, O’Neill have revoked my access to the building portal – further proof of the way O’Neill Strata choose to operate. This stands in stark contrast to the values they publicly promote website about fairness and...”
20 Aug 2025
“O’Neill Strata have been managing our property for over 15 years and have consistently provided exceptional service. They are professional, highly responsive, and always a pleasure to deal with. Even delicate matters are handled with ease, giving us peace of mind. They also engage excellent...”
03 Nov 2025
“This strata was an absolute disaster. We bought a property managed by them, and they barely replied to emails. It’s a family-run business, and you can never find anyone to handle complaints. Every time you call, they say they’re “in a meeting,” but they’re actually working from home doing who...”
27 Jan 2026
“Alain Gyi looks after our building in Bondi. He is the most supportive, knowledgeable, professional gentleman I have ever dealt with. He takes action and follows through with a can do attitude. I can't thank him enough for all his kindness”
24 Sep 2025
“After having the same strata managers for over two decades of a small building we finally made a move over to O’Neill this year and have experienced what we have missed in service.
Thank you so much for a great beginning in the follow up on simple requests on the maintenance of our building.”