Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 10,269 (90%)
Commercial 290 (3%)
Utility 600 (5%)
Other 218 (2%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 62.2 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liverpool 2170 | 8 | 490 | 4% | 2.0% | |
| Zetland 2017 | 6 | 552 | 3% | 6.7% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 6 | 53 | 3% | 1.4% | |
| Sydney Olympic Park 2127 | 5 | 1,771 | 3% | 31.2% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 5 | 567 | 3% | 1.1% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 5 | 725 | 3% | 5.5% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 5 | 93 | 3% | 1.6% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 4 | 959 | 2% | 2.1% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 4 | 124 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 4 | 159 | 2% | 1.7% |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 4 | 70 | 2% | 1.4% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 4 | 47 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 4 | 40 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 4 | 30 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 3 | 355 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 3 | 291 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 3 | 307 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 3 | 276 | 2% | 2.6% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 3 | 192 | 2% | 1.2% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 3 | 189 | 2% | 2.4% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 3 | 54 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 3 | 37 | 2% | 2.7% | |
| Granville 2142 | 3 | 43 | 2% | 1.4% | |
| Wentworth Point 2127 | 2 | 580 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 2 | 376 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 2 | 102 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 2 | 90 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 2 | 63 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 2 | 96 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 2 | 76 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 2 | 51 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 2 | 42 | 1% | 4.9% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 2 | 37 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 2 | 56 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 2 | 46 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 2 | 28 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| North Kellyville 2155 | 2 | 31 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 2 | 25 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 2 | 21 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| South Coogee 2034 | 2 | 12 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 2 | 8 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 1 | 363 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Epping 2121 | 1 | 251 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 203 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 1 | 113 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 1 | 93 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Lindfield 2070 | 1 | 88 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 88 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 70 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Lewisham 2049 | 1 | 68 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 51 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Gordon 2072 | 1 | 44 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 1 | 41 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Newington 2127 | 1 | 41 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 1 | 39 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 1 | 38 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 1 | 38 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 1 | 36 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 1 | 33 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Asquith 2077 | 1 | 33 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 32 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 32 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 1 | 28 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 28 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Woolloomooloo 2011 | 1 | 28 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 1 | 22 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 22 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Cromer 2099 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 1 | 17 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Bardwell Park 2207 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 9.1% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Prestons 2170 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Pagewood 2035 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 7.1% | |
| Condell Park 2200 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Haberfield 2045 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 4.5% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Cremorne Point 2090 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 0.3% |
Tribunal & Court History
25
Total Cases
7
NCAT
17
Supreme Court
1
Court of Appeal
6.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
13.7
Total per 100 Schemes
25 cases since 2021. Of these, 11 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 14 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 16
Dismissed 8
By-law enforcement 4
Building defects 4
Common property 3
Repair & maintenance 1
The defendants sought costs after the trial was vacated due to the plaintiff's late evidence. The court agreed with the defendants, finding the plaintiff's conduct caused the trial's vacation. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
COSTS – matter fixed for trial – plaintiff serves substantial body of further liability and quantum evidence – trial vacated – whether plaintiff should pay costs of motion to vacate and costs thrown away – no issue of principle.
Before
Rees J
Hearing
On the papers; last submissions 11 November 2025
File Numbers
2021/335374
Matched Strata Plans
SP99170
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: M Pesman SC and T Bors (Defendants) Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Plaintiff) Colins Biggers & Paisley (Defendants)
Orders
Existing costs orders stand.
The applicant sought to keep a trial date for a building defects case. The tribunal decided to vacate the trial date because the defendants needed more time to respond to late-served evidence from the plaintiff. The defendants were awarded costs.
VACATE TRIAL – principles at [19]-[21] – matter fixed for trial – plaintiff serves substantial body of further liability and quantum evidence.
Before
Rees J
Hearing
10 October 2025
File Numbers
2021/335374
Matched Strata Plans
SP99170
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: N Simpson SC (Plaintiff) M Pesman SC (Defendants) Solicitors: Project Lawyers (Plaintiff) Collins Biggers & Paisley (Defendants)
Orders
Trial vacated, relisted 26 June 2026.
A developer sought to amend its cross-claim against multiple parties in a building defects case. The court dismissed parts of the application related to two of the parties due to insufficient details about causation but allowed the claim to proceed against one party.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – amendment – late application for amendment of Technology and Construction Cross Claim List Statement – hearing imminent – pleading of causation – necessity to identify likely credible sequence of events that would have occurred but for impugned conduct
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
16 May 2025
File Numbers
2020/353796
Matched Strata Plans
SP91684
Parties
Developer v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: M Ashhurst SC / L Corbett (Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd) M Sheldon (Bates Smart Pty Ltd) J Courtenay (McKenzie Group Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd) N Simpson SC (WSP Buildings Pty Ltd)...
Orders
Leave to amend Cross Claim List Statement against WSP and Bates Smart refused; balance of Defendant’s Notice of Motion of 17 April 2025 stood over to 23 May 2025
Innovative Builders and Engineers Pty Ltd appealed a decision, and the tribunal allowed the appeal. The tribunal set aside the previous orders and ordered the homeowners to pay the builder's appeal costs. A separate application for the return of money was referred to another division for hearing.
Costs - rr 38 and 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 – appeal allowed - costs of appealed proceedings to be costs in the cause on rehearing – costs of appeal to follow the event – measure of costs recoverable by self-represented parties –where leave to be legally represented...
Before
P H Molony, Senior Member D G Fairlie, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00244876
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Developer v Lot Owner
Representation
M Chowdhury (First Appellant) Second Appellant (Self-Represented) First Respondent (Self-Represented) M Shah (Second Respondent)
Orders
(1) The Appeal Panel dispenses with a hearing with respect to the costs issues in the appeal and with respect to the referral of appellant’s miscellaneous application for the return of moneys to the Consumer and Commercial Division. (2) The costs of the appealed proceedings are costs in the cause on rehearing. (3) The respondent homeowners shall pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed. If assessed, the assessor is to have regard to the factors outlined in pars [16] and...
The Owners Corporation sought costs from Hardy Pty Ltd. The tribunal decided that Hardy Pty Ltd should pay the costs, but not on an indemnity basis. The tribunal considered the settlement offers and determined that neither party acted unreasonably.
COSTS – party/party – indemnity basis – whether costs should be awarded on indemnity basis – whether unreasonable of defendant not to accept offers
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
On the papers; submissions 5, 13 and 17 June 2024
File Numbers
2020/177268
Matched Strata Plans
SP89866
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Byrne (Plaintiff/Applicant) G Campbell (First and Second Defendants/First Respondent) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers (Plaintiff/Applicant) Sanford Legal (First and Second Defendants/First Respondent)
Orders
Indemnity costs refused
The Owners Corporation sought to extend a freezing order against the developer due to alleged building defects. The tribunal granted the extension of the freezing order, with some modifications, to protect the proceeds of a unit sale. The tribunal found the Owners Corporation had a sufficient case to warrant the order.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – freezing orders – application by plaintiff to extend freezing orders restraining second and fourth defendants – whether a “good and arguable case” established
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
23 April 2024 and 29 May 2024
File Numbers
2020/177268
Matched Strata Plans
SP89866
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Hand (Plaintiff/Applicant) (On 23 April 2024) D Byrne (Plaintiff/Applicant) (On 29 May 2024) G Campbell (First and Second Defendants/First Respondent) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers...
Orders
Freezing orders varied and continued until the conclusion of the hearing or further order
The applicant, a lot owner, had brought proceedings against the respondent owners corporation which were summarily dismissed. The tribunal decided that the respondent was entitled to its costs and made an order for the plaintiff to pay a gross sum to cover the proceedings and the notice of motion, due to the plaintiff's conduct.
COSTS – party/party – self-represented litigant – where application made by defendant for gross sum costs orders under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) following summary dismissal of plaintiff’s claim – where conduct of the plaintiff significantly increased costs and...
Before
Chen J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Plaintiff (self-represented) Eakin McCaffery Cox (defendant)
Orders
Order, pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, and of the notice of motion filed 17 November 2023, in the gross sum of $213,000.00.
The plaintiff sought to set aside the orders of a previous hearing, but the tribunal dismissed this application because the plaintiff did not adequately support his case. The tribunal also dismissed the plaintiff's recusal application. The tribunal ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for recusal – where plaintiff identified no basis for recusal – request refused JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – where plaintiff brought application to set aside orders – where plaintiff did not materially engage with provisions of...
Before
Chen J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: L Holland (defendant) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (defendant)
Orders
(1) Dismiss the plaintiff’s recusal application. (2) Dismiss paragraph 1 of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 13 November 2023. (3) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the above applications on an indemnity basis.
A tenant sued the Owners Corporation alleging the corporation was complicit in a range of offenses. The Court found the case frivolous and an abuse of process, striking the summons and ordering the applicant to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – dismissal of proceedings – frivolous or vexatious proceedings – where plaintiff has been permitted significant period of time to replead claim but has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to do so – whether conduct of plaintiff constitutes an abuse of...
Before
Chen J
Hearing
8 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: L Holland (defendant) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (defendant)
Orders
(1) Order that, pursuant to r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the proceedings be dismissed. (2) Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Mr. Sethi filed documents that violated a previous stay order, which the court found to be an abuse of process. The court ordered the removal of these documents and set aside a notice to produce for inspection. The court would have refused the relief sought even if not in contravention of the stay.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — stay previously ordered in relation to the proceedings — further documents filed — those documents in contravention of the stay should be removed from the Court file and returned to the applicant — application is a collateral attack of NCAT determination — were the stay...
Before
Campbell J
Hearing
1 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: A Sethi (Plaintiff in person) L Holland (solicitor) (Defendant) E Patrick (solicitor) (Mr Cho) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Defendant) Hicksons (Mr Cho)
Orders
(1) Direct that the notice of motion of 29 July 2023, the affidavit of 28 July 2023 and the amended summons of 28 July 2023, filed in contravention of the stay ordered on 17 July 2023, be removed from the Court file, expunged from JusticeLink and returned to Mr Sethi. (2) Order that the notice to produce for inspection is set aside.
Mr. Sethi made various procedural applications that were unsuccessful, leading to the tribunal imposing restrictions on his ability to take further steps in the proceedings. The tribunal sided with the defendant and ordered Mr. Sethi to pay their costs for today's hearing. The judge was concerned with the disproportionate amount of time spent on the proceedings due to Mr. Sethi's actions.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — defendant reinvigorated earlier summary dismissal application — plaintiff’s conduct of the proceedings has caused increased costs — reinvigoration of application without prior notice to plaintiff
Before
Campbell J
Hearing
1 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: A Sethi (Plaintiff in person) L Holland (solicitor) (Defendant) E Patrick (solicitor) (Mr Cho) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Defendant) Hicksons (Mr Cho)
Orders
(1) Mr Sethi is not to take any step whatsoever in these proceedings, unless and until he complies with order 3 pronounced on 17 July 2023, as amended by me on 1 August 2023, within the time allowed unless he first obtains leave of a judge on application supported by affidavit which application is to be dealt with in Chambers in the absence of the parties. (2) If the defendant solicitor is of the opinion that Mr Sethi has not complied with the rules in relation to any further pleading he...
The applicant requested the judge recuse himself because of perceived bias and alleged improper communications. The tribunal found these claims baseless and refused the application, stating the judge must fulfill his duty to hear the case.
COURTS AND JUDGES — bias — application for recusal — allegation of private communications between chambers and a party — allegation unfounded and rejected — the bias application does not rise above anything other than mere assertion
Before
Campbell J
Hearing
1 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: A Sethi (Plaintiff in person) L Holland (Solicitor) (Defendant) E Patrick (Solicitor) (Mr Cho) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Defendant) Hicksons (Mr Cho)
Orders
The application for recusal is refused
The applicant sought to set aside previous orders made by the court. The court refused the application and dismissed it, stating that the applicant's arguments did not meet the necessary criteria for setting aside the orders.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application to set aside earlier judgment in proceedings — applicant sought to reventilate matters raised in earlier proceedings — proper avenue to challenge the earlier decision is the Court of Appeal
Before
Campbell J
Hearing
1 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: A Sethi (Plaintiff in person) L Holland (Defendant) E Patrick (Mr Cho) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Defendant) Hicksons (Mr Cho)
Orders
Motion filed on 17 July 2023 is dismissed
A lot owner filed a summons alleging criminal activity by the owners corporation. The tribunal struck out the summons because it improperly mixed criminal and civil claims. The lot owner was given 28 days to amend their summons.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application to strike out summons — matter irregularly commenced by summons instead of statement of claim — application to strike out defendant’s notice of appearance — application for summary dismissal — cannot be finally determined without proper pleading — application for...
Before
Campbell J
Hearing
17 July 2023
File Numbers
2023/137553
Matched Strata Plans
SP93392
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: A Sethi (Plaintiff in person) J Lazarus SC (Defendant) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Defendant)
Orders
(1) The prayers for relief one and two in Mr Sethi's notice of motion filed on 22 June 2023 are refused. (2) Under r 14.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) the whole of the plaintiff's summons is struck out. (3) Allow the plaintiff a period of 28 days to re‑plead whatever cause of action he wishes to bring forward as a civil matter in accordance with these reasons by filing and serving a statement of claim pleading his cause of action in accordance with the said Rules. (4) These...
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Implied terms — Statutory warranties — Whether building complied with Building Code of Australia (BCA) — Where performance requirements of BCA specified that external walls must be “non-combustible” — Whether external cladding met performance requirements...
Matched Strata Plans
SP92450
An owners corporation sued a builder for building defects. The builder filed a motion under section 192A of the Evidence Act which was ultimately dismissed. The tribunal found the builder acted unreasonably by not accepting the owners corporation's offer and ordered the builder to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
COSTS – indemnity costs – defendant makes unsuccessful application for advanced ruling on evidence pursuant to section 192A, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – plaintiff makes “walk away” offer – application more strange than novel – defendant asks the Court to depart from good law – rejection of offer...
Before
Rees J
Hearing
On the papers; submissions received 21 October 2022
File Numbers
2020/348227
Matched Strata Plans
SP90189
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Mr P Horobin (Plaintiff/Respondent) Mr M Ashhurst SC / Mr L Corbett (First Defendant/Applicant Solicitors: Chambers Russell Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent) Mills Oakley (First Defendant/Applicant)
Orders
Indemnity costs order from date of Calderbank letter.
An owners corporation sued the builder alleging building defects. The builder sought a ruling on the admissibility of the owner's expert reports. The court dismissed the builder's motion, finding it was not appropriate under section 192A of the Evidence Act, and the matter was set for directions.
EVIDENCE – application for advance ruling – section 192A, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – builder seeks ruling that expert reports are inadmissible as irrelevant – case law review and principles regarding advance rulings at [40]-[50] – premature to make rulings sought where builder yet to serve...
Before
Rees J
Hearing
10 October 2022
File Numbers
2020/348227
Matched Strata Plans
SP90189
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Mr M Pesman SC / Mr P Horobin (Plaintiff/Respondent) Mr MA Ashhurst SC / Mr L Corbett (First Defendant/Applicant) Solicitors: Chambers Russell Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent) Mills Oakley...
Orders
Dismiss motion for advance ruling with costs.
A retail shop Lessee sought compensation and rectification of water ingress issues. The Tribunal found the Lessor had breached quiet enjoyment and ordered the Owners Corporation to engage professionals and obtain quotations for the rectification of water ingress issues. The Lessor's application for costs was dismissed.
COSTS – Rule 38(2) applies - multiple and interrelated issues in Lessee’s application and in Lessors’ cross application against Owners Corporation - varying degrees of success in both applications – the “event” is determined by the substance and reality of the outcome of the proceeding - proper...
Before
D Charles, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
COM 20/41088; SC 21/13805
Matched Strata Plans
SP20736
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: L Katsanas (for Stanley Stephen Dipsellas) H Altan (for The Owners – Strata Plan No 20736) Solicitors: Shad Partners (for Joanne Constantinou) Shanahans Butlers Solicitors (for Stanley...
Orders
1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW, a hearing on the question of costs is dispensed with. 2. The application for his costs in the proceedings constituted by File Nos. COM 20/41088 and SC 21/13805 by the Lessor, Stanley Stephen Dipsellas, is dismissed. 3. No order as to costs, with the intent that all parties are to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
The applicants, lot owners, sought an order compelling the owners corporation to register a by-law regarding common property rights. The Tribunal found the owners corporation unreasonably refused the by-law and ordered its registration. The tribunal reasoned the refusal wasn't based on sound judgement.
LAND LAW - Strata title - Whether proposed by-law unreasonably refused
Before
G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
7 June 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/51950
Matched Strata Plans
SP208
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Strata Title Lawyers (Applicants) First Respondent – no appearance Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Second, Third and Fourth Respondents)
Orders
1. Pursuant to s 149(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, the Tribunal makes the common property rights by-law tabled by the applicants at the meeting of the first respondent held on 4 November 2021. 2. Pursuant to s 246 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, within 28 days (ie on or before 17 August 2022) the first respondent is to do all things necessary to register that by-law. 3. Any submissions in support of an application for costs (not exceeding five pages), together with any...
The Owners Corporation sought relief regarding allegedly defective cladding in their building. The tribunal determined that the Owners Corporation did not prove breaches of statutory warranties or building code compliance related to the cladding. The Owners Corporation was ordered to pay costs.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Statutory warranty — Proceedings for breach — Where the plaintiff owners corporation seeks a range of relief relating to allegedly combustible cladding on a residential unit block — Where the parties seek the determination of several...
Before
Black J
Hearing
30 June 2022, 1 July 2022, 7 July 2022
File Numbers
2019/75454
Matched Strata Plans
SP92450
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J Steele SC/R Size (Plaintiff) R Cheney SC/H Pintos-Lopez (Defendants) Solicitors: Eakin McCaffery Cox (Plaintiff) EA Legal (Defendants)
Orders
Separate questions answered. Plaintiff to pay the costs of and incidental to the determination of the separate questions and this hearing, as agreed or as assessed.
The applicants sought compensation for defective building work on the balcony of their apartment. The tribunal found that the applicants, as lot owners, could not pursue this claim because the work was done on common property under a contract with the Owners Corporation. Therefore, the application was dismissed as misconceived.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Statutory warranty – Due care and skill – Standing of Lot Owners to bring an application under the Home Building Act 1989 against a builder engaged by the Owners Corporation in relation to the repair of common property in a Strata Scheme
Before
P French, Senior Member
Hearing
20 April 2022
File Numbers
HB 21/45759
Matched Strata Plans
SP92638
Parties
Lot Owner v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: B Anderson (Respondent) Solicitors: Bull, Son and Schmidt (First and Second Applicant) ITC Law (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the application is dismissed on the basis that it is misconceived. (2) Any application for costs is to be made with supporting submissions by 4 July 2022. Submissions are to be limited to 5 A4 pages in not less than 11 point font. (3) Any reply to any application for costs is to be made with supporting submissions by 28 July 2022. Submissions are to be limited to 5 A4 pages in not less than 11 point font. (4)...
The owners corporations appealed a tribunal decision that declared by-laws about short-term rentals invalid. The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeals, upholding the original decision that parts of the by-laws were harsh or beyond the corporation's power. The owners corporations must now pay the costs of the appeal, if they choose to do so.
LAND LAW – Strata Schemes Management Act – validity of by-law - harsh, unconscionable or oppressive – without power - severability
Before
R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member J Kearney, Senior Member
Hearing
22 November 2021
File Numbers
2021/00262738 & 2021/00262728
Matched Strata Plans
SP90189
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: In 2021/00262738: Counsel: D Knoll (Appellants) M Cobb-Clark (Respondent) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Appellants) Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Respondent) In 2021/00262728: Counsel: M Cobb-Clark...
Orders
1. In matter 2021/00262738: (a) The appeal is dismissed; and (b) The stay of the Tribunal’s orders granted 29 September 2021 is lifted. 2. In matter 2021/00262728: (a) The appeal is dismissed; and (b) The stay of the Tribunal’s orders granted 29 September 2021 is lifted. 3. The Respondent is to file submissions on costs (limited to five pages) within 28 days; 4. The Appellants may respond within a further 14 days. 5. The Respondent may reply within a further 14 days. 6. The Appeal Panel...
The applicants, Knight, sought costs for an appeal and previous proceedings. The tribunal granted the Knights' application for costs, finding that special circumstances existed due to the complexity and significance of the issues, including renovations and common property rights. The tribunal ordered the respondents, Bruce et al., to pay the applicants' costs, as agreed or assessed.
LAND LAW – strata title – common property – common property rights by-law – whether unreasonable refusal to consent
Before
R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member A Boxall, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2021/00056122
Matched Strata Plans
SP208
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers, Appellants Strata Title Lawyers, Respondents
Orders
1. A hearing is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 2. The respondents are to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal (2021/00056122) as agreed or as assessed. 3. The respondents are to pay the appellants’ costs’ of the proceedings at first instance (SC 20/26294) as agreed or as assessed.
The Owners Corporation sought to enter judgment against the Builder and Developer, as per a prior settlement. The tribunal decided to grant judgment, as the developer had defaulted on completing rectification works. The developer was also ordered to pay the Owners Corporation's costs.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – claim against builder and developer for building defects – claim settled on date of hearing – settlement agreement – provision that rectification works be effected in accordance with remedial contract – provision in settlement agreement that if default occurs judgment...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
15 July 2021; further written submissions 20 & 21 July 2021
File Numbers
2019/102548
Matched Strata Plans
SP85561
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: F P Hicks SC (Plaintiff/Applicant) G P McNally SC (Defendants/Respondents) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Plaintiff/Applicant) Fortis Law (Defendants/Respondents)
Orders
Plaintiff entitled to judgment
The Knights sought to have the owners corporation approve a by-law for renovations. The Tribunal made orders in favor of the Knights. The Appeal Panel found the Tribunal misstated and misapplied the correct principles of law and remitted the matter for a new hearing.
LAND LAW – strata title – common property – common property rights by-law – whether unreasonable refusal to consent
Before
R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member A Boxall, Senior Member
Hearing
5 May 2021
File Numbers
2021/00056122 (AP 21/08111)
Matched Strata Plans
SP208
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: V F Kerr SC (Appellants) S Foda (Respondents) Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Appellants) Strata Title Lawyers (Respondents)
Orders
(1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The orders made by the Tribunal on 21 January 2021 in SC 20/26294 are set aside. (3) The whole of the proceedings be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for a new hearing and redetermination of the respondent’s application in accordance with the evidence previously adduced to the Tribunal and such further evidence as the Tribunal may allow. (4) If the appellants seek costs: (a) they must file with the Registry and give to the respondents submissions...
Google Reviews
11 Dec 2025
“After serving as Chair of our Strata Committee and having worked with two previous strata management companies, I had almost resigned myself to believing that finding a consistently professional, proactive and highly knowledgeable strata manager was a pipe dream. That changed the moment we moved...”
27 Nov 2025
“I attended a strata meeting recently where James Patsis ran it and I can say it was a positive one. He consistently acts in the best interests of the building and its residents. Having dealt with many strata managers before him, I can honestly say he is the most diligent I’ve worked with.
James...”
03 Dec 2025
“We came on board with Premium Strata this year and it has been a great experience so far, largely thanks to the professionalism, responsiveness, and genuine care shown by Marulie Dulay and Ben He.
The team is incredibly organised and proactive, communicating clearly, following through on every...”
10 Dec 2025
“Premium Strata Manager Marulie has always been efficient and easy to engage with. She and her team communicate clearly, respond promptly, and handle matters professionally. Overall, working with her has been a smooth and reliable experience. Kudos!”
18 Sep 2025
“I had a wonderful experience with Carina from Premium Strata. She is incredibly attentive and always goes above and beyond to assist with my inquiries. Her responses were prompt and thorough. I truly appreciate her professionalism and dedication. It was a pleasure dealing with Carina, thank you...”