Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 927 (82%)
Commercial 30 (3%)
Utility 91 (8%)
Other 83 (7%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 11.5 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 20 | 292 | 20% | 4.1% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 16 | 110 | 16% | 3.5% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 7 | 56 | 7% | 2.7% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 7 | 31 | 7% | 2.3% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 6 | 59 | 6% | 2.0% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 5 | 170 | 5% | 2.3% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 5 | 28 | 5% | 1.2% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 3 | 28 | 3% | 2.0% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 3 | 12 | 3% | 3.7% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 2 | 74 | 2% | 0.8% |
| Randwick 2031 | 2 | 28 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 2 | 16 | 2% | 1.1% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 2 | 10 | 2% | 2.0% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 2 | 5 | 2% | 1.8% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 1 | 73 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.5% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Total Cases
4
NCAT
1.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
4.1
Total per 100 Schemes
4 cases since 2022. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 1
Dismissed 3
The applicant sought to be reinstated to the Register of dentists after having his registration cancelled due to professional misconduct and impairment. The tribunal decided to dismiss the application. The tribunal was not satisfied the applicant could be trusted to practice dentistry safely and protect the public.
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – dentistry – application for reinstatement
Before
R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Dr D Gunasekera, Senior member Dr M Jonas, Senior Member F Taylor, General Member
Hearing
12 June 2024
File Numbers
2023/00429923
Matched Strata Plans
SP18482
Parties
Third Party v Government
Representation
Applicant (self-represented) Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The application is dismissed. (2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of any patient referred to in the proceedings is prohibited. (3) If the applicant opposes an order that he pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or as assessed, he is to file submissions within 14 days of the date of these reasons. (4) The respondent may respond within a further 14 days.
The applicant sought costs related to an appeal against the tribunal's original decision. The tribunal decided that the appeal was unmeritorious and the applicant should pay the respondent's costs. The decision was made because the appeal was considered untenable and the applicant’s conduct caused the respondent to incur unnecessary costs.
APPEALS – costs – special circumstances established warranting an award of costs – no question of principle
Before
K Rosser, Principal Member R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00032707
Matched Strata Plans
SP18482
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: D P O’Dowd (Appellant) Solicitors: Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Appellant) J S Mueller & Co (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing is dispensed with. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or as assessed.
An applicant sought an appeal to a prior decision, and also sought the appointment of a compulsory strata manager. The tribunal refused the appeal for various reasons including the time limit to file, and the application for leave to appeal was denied. The tribunal decided that a compulsory manager was unnecessary.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal decided that the appointment of a compulsory manager was not justified as the consent orders had been complied with.
APPEALS – substantive decision – whether an extension of time should be granted - application for leave to appeal – no question of principle APPEALS – costs decision – application for leave to appeal – no question of principle
Before
K Rosser, Principal Member R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member
Hearing
3 April 2023
File Numbers
2023/00032707
Matched Strata Plans
SP18482
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: D P O’Dowd (Appellant) Solicitors: Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Appellant) J S Mueller & Co (Respondent)
Orders
(1) In so far as the appeal relates to the decision of 8 November 2022 in matter SC 22/10623: (a) the application to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal is refused; and (b) the appeal is otherwise dismissed. (2) In so far as the appeal relates to the decision of 3 January 2023 in matter SC 22/10623: (a) the application for leave to appeal is refused; and (b) the appeal is otherwise dismissed. (3) If the respondent seeks costs, it is to file any evidence and submissions within 14...
An apartment owner sought the appointment of a compulsory strata manager due to alleged dysfunction within the scheme. The tribunal determined that because the original orders had been complied with, and considering the circumstances, the appointment of a strata manager was not justified and the application was dismissed.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal found that the scheme was not dysfunctional and the delay in compliance with the initial orders did not justify appointing a compulsory manager.
LAND LAW — Strata schemes — Renewal of proceedings — Appointment of compulsory strata manager — Whether grounds for compulsory appointment established
Before
D. Ziegler, Senior Member
Hearing
1 November 2022
File Numbers
SC22/10623
Matched Strata Plans
SP18482
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: D O’Dowd (Applicant) Solicitors: Gillis Delaney Lawyers (Applicant) JS Mueller & Co (Respondent)
Orders
1. The application is dismissed. 2. If there is a costs application, the costs applicant is to file and serve submissions and documents on the costs application by 14 days from the date of these orders. 3. The costs respondent is to file and serve submissions and documents on the costs application by 28 days from the date of these orders. 4. The costs applicant is to file and serve costs submissions in reply by 35 days from the date of these orders. 5. The costs submissions of the parties...
Google Reviews
27 Mar 2025
“Always great digital learnings from the knowledgeable team at Realise Business in support of Canberra local small business! Thankyou, regards Danielle”
08 Jul 2016
“I booked and attended a small business course here. The facilities I saw were a training room with a tea/coffee room attached and a smaller meeting room. They also had toilets and I suspect some other rooms that I did not see. My understanding is that small businesses can lease these for...”
29 May 2017
“Thanks to Anfernee who patiently and clearly presented his knowledge. We now have a clearer direction of what we need to do and change to improve our business.
Our experience with him was useful and insightful.
Thank you again”
12 Sep 2025
“I appreciate our newly appointed Senior Strata Manager, Adam Tyrrell. He has maintained good communication and spot on knowledge during difficult times. Adam is professional yet has a extremely caring side and easy to talk to. He is prompt with email replies and makes you feel nothing is too...”
11 Sep 2025
“Adam Tyrrell, Senior Strata Manager, has recently started working with out strata property, he's been amazing from the start. Adam is extremely professional, very supportive and always friendly. He has exemplary communication skills, which makes liaising with him a joy. I would wholeheartedly...”