Realise Consulting Pty Ltd
Realise Consulting Pty Ltd manages around 100 strata schemes totalling 1,200 lots across NSW. With an average of around 12 lots per scheme (state average: around 20), it focuses on smaller schemes such as townhouse complexes and walk-up blocks. It has a broad geographic spread across 31 suburbs, with Bondi Beach as its largest market (19%). Its schemes have been involved in 4 tribunal and court decisions since 2021, none of which resulted in adverse findings.
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
82% residential
SCA NSW
Not listed
Fair Trading
✓ Not on register
Scheme Decisions
4 in portfolio since 2022
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 82%
Commercial 2%
Utility 9%
Other 7%
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 19 | 286 | 19% | 3.9% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 16 | 110 | 16% | 3.5% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 7 | 71 | 7% | 2.0% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 6 | 47 | 6% | 1.5% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 6 | 59 | 6% | 2.0% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 5 | 170 | 5% | 2.4% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 5 | 23 | 5% | 1.7% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 4 | 30 | 4% | 2.8% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 3 | 12 | 3% | 3.5% | |
| 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% | 2.1% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 2 | 5 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| 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% | |
| Birchgrove 2041 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 2.9% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.5% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Scheme Decisions
4
NCAT
0.0
Manager Adverse / 100
4.1
Total per 100 Schemes
4 tribunal or court decisions in managed schemes since 2022. In none of these was Realise Consulting Pty Ltd named as a party — all involved schemes they manage. No adverse findings against the manager.
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...
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many strata schemes does Realise Consulting Pty Ltd manage in NSW?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd manages around 100 strata schemes (around 1,200 total lots) across 31 suburbs in New South Wales, based on the NSW StrataHub register.
- What areas does Realise Consulting Pty Ltd provide strata management in?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd is most active in Bondi Beach, Rose Bay, Vaucluse, covering 31 suburbs across NSW in total.
- Does Realise Consulting Pty Ltd specialise in residential or commercial strata?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd manages primarily residential (82% residential, 2% commercial).
- What is the average scheme size managed by Realise Consulting Pty Ltd?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd manages schemes averaging 12 lots each, compared to the NSW state average of approximately 20 lots per scheme.
- Is Realise Consulting Pty Ltd a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW?
- Based on the SCA NSW online directory, Realise Consulting Pty Ltd does not appear as a current member.
- Does Realise Consulting Pty Ltd have any NSW Fair Trading enforcement actions?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd 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 Realise Consulting Pty Ltd?
- 4 tribunal or court cases involving schemes managed by Realise Consulting Pty Ltd appear in NSW caselaw records since 2022.
- What is Realise Consulting Pty Ltd's NSW strata management licence number?
- Realise Consulting Pty Ltd's NSW licence number is 10051238, issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.