Strata Choice Pty Ltd
Strata Choice Pty Ltd is one of the ten largest strata managers in NSW, managing around 850 strata schemes (39,000 total lots). With an average of around 47 lots per scheme, it specialises in larger buildings — more than double the state-wide average of around 20 lots. It has a broad geographic spread across 165 suburbs, with Punchbowl as its largest market (10%). Its schemes have been involved in 21 tribunal and court decisions since 2021, of which 1 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
83% residential
SCA NSW
✓ Member
Fair Trading
✓ Not on register
Scheme Decisions
21 in portfolio since 2021
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 83%
Commercial 6%
Utility 11%
Other 0%
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 47.1 lots. Most schemes fall in the 11–25 lot range, typical of small apartment blocks.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1962, newest 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Punchbowl 2196 | 82 | 1,066 | 10% | 25.7% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 45 | 2,701 | 5% | 22.4% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 34 | 4,116 | 4% | 7.4% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 26 | 394 | 3% | 2.8% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 22 | 724 | 3% | 11.1% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 19 | 1,343 | 2% | 13.0% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 19 | 329 | 2% | 3.9% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 19 | 535 | 2% | 10.0% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 18 | 892 | 2% | 7.5% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 18 | 230 | 2% | 3.7% |
| Cammeray 2062 | 18 | 202 | 2% | 6.2% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 18 | 203 | 2% | 6.1% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 16 | 307 | 2% | 5.4% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 15 | 204 | 2% | 8.0% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 14 | 906 | 2% | 5.5% | |
| Artarmon 2064 | 14 | 196 | 2% | 7.9% | |
| Millers Point 2000 | 12 | 4,874 | 1% | 30.8% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 12 | 1,219 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Milsons Point 2061 | 11 | 1,667 | 1% | 18.3% | |
| Rosebery 2018 | 11 | 1,754 | 1% | 13.3% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 11 | 349 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 10 | 685 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 10 | 52 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 9 | 1,014 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 9 | 460 | 1% | 7.1% | |
| Dawes Point 2000 | 8 | 854 | 1% | 50.0% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 8 | 62 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Mcmahons Point 2060 | 7 | 134 | 1% | 8.0% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 7 | 59 | 1% | 4.5% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 6 | 617 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Wolli Creek 2205 | 6 | 722 | 1% | 9.1% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 6 | 262 | 1% | 3.3% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 6 | 152 | 1% | 5.9% | |
| Naremburn 2065 | 6 | 140 | 1% | 5.8% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 6 | 164 | 1% | 4.7% | |
| Cremorne Point 2090 | 6 | 59 | 1% | 3.7% | |
| Manly 2095 | 6 | 77 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Waverton 2060 | 6 | 56 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 5 | 541 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 5 | 212 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 5 | 130 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 5 | 131 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 5 | 157 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 5 | 95 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 5 | 102 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 5 | 81 | 1% | 6.1% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 4 | 800 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 4 | 239 | 0% | 4.5% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 4 | 440 | 0% | 5.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 4 | 253 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| The Rocks 2000 | 4 | 62 | 0% | 19.0% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 4 | 103 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 4 | 137 | 0% | 5.4% | |
| Cronulla 2230 | 4 | 51 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Hurlstone Park 2193 | 4 | 28 | 0% | 6.9% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 3 | 336 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 3 | 297 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 3 | 214 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Lindfield 2070 | 3 | 184 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 3 | 331 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Ultimo 2007 | 3 | 207 | 0% | 4.8% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 3 | 232 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 3 | 93 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Killara 2071 | 3 | 70 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 3 | 65 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Woolloomooloo 2011 | 3 | 69 | 0% | 3.9% | |
| Forest Lodge 2037 | 3 | 52 | 0% | 8.3% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 3 | 41 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 3 | 46 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 3 | 30 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 3 | 22 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 3 | 15 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Schofields 2762 | 3 | 6 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Zetland 2017 | 2 | 598 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 2 | 121 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 2 | 107 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 2 | 99 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Breakfast Point 2137 | 2 | 106 | 0% | 4.1% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 2 | 114 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 2 | 59 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Miranda 2228 | 2 | 78 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Gordon 2072 | 2 | 44 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 2 | 68 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 2 | 43 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 2 | 34 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Beaconsfield 2015 | 2 | 45 | 0% | 10.5% | |
| Katoomba 2780 | 2 | 58 | 0% | 3.8% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 2 | 42 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Freshwater 2096 | 2 | 26 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 2 | 27 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 2 | 36 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Palm Beach 2108 | 2 | 28 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Northbridge 2063 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 3.5% | |
| Russell Lea 2046 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Wareemba 2046 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 6.5% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 2 | 17 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| New Lambton 2305 | 2 | 16 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 2 | 9 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Longueville 2066 | 2 | 4 | 0% | 40.0% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 1 | 196 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Barangaroo 2000 | 1 | 159 | 0% | 25.0% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 1 | 103 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| North Kellyville 2155 | 1 | 67 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Kiama 2533 | 1 | 60 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 1 | 56 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 1 | 55 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 55 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 1 | 48 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Queens Park 2022 | 1 | 45 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 1 | 41 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Lewisham 2049 | 1 | 32 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Newport 2106 | 1 | 31 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 1 | 27 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Enfield 2136 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 2.8% | |
| Concord West 2138 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Forestville 2087 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 3.6% | |
| Botany 2019 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| North Willoughby 2068 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Huntleys Cove 2111 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Kingsgrove 2208 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| North Richmond 2754 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Sandringham 2219 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| North Strathfield 2137 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Georges Hall 2198 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Roseville 2069 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| West Hoxton 2171 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| The Entrance 2261 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Wollongong 2500 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.3% |
Tribunal & Court History
21
Scheme Decisions
17
NCAT
2
Supreme Court
1
Court of Appeal
0.1
Manager Adverse / 100
2.5
Total per 100 Schemes
21 tribunal or court decisions in managed schemes since 2021. Strata Choice Pty Ltd was named as a party in 2 of these. The remaining 19 involved schemes they manage but did not name the manager directly. 1 resulted in adverse orders against Strata Choice Pty Ltd.
Orders Made 12
Dismissed 9
Common property 5
Repair & maintenance 3
Building defects 3
Parking & access 2
By-law enforcement 2
The Owners Corporation sought a freezing order to prevent the developer from disposing of assets related to a building project due to a dispute over defective works. The court granted the order, restraining the developer from dealing with specific lots without notice, but allowed for completion of existing contracts. The court awarded costs in the cause, to be determined later.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — interim preservation — freezing orders — whether there is a danger that a judgment against the first defendant will be unsatisfied because its assets may be disposed of — other relevant considerations including plaintiff’s capacity to meet usual undertaking as to damages
Before
Griffiths AJ
Hearing
4 February 2026; further submissions 4-5 February 2026
File Numbers
2022/00151309
Matched Strata Plans
SP97938
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: F Corsaro SC with P Horobin (Plaintiff) N Kidd SC with J Dooley (First Defendant) Solicitors: Chambers Russell Lawyers (Plaintiff) Allens (First Defendant)
Orders
1. Upon the plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages, order that the first defendant be restrained from encumbering, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with Lots 1-18 of Folio Identifier SP108772, apart from lots 5, 11 and 18, without giving prior notification in writing to the plaintiff of at least 20 business days, until final judgment of the proceedings or alternatively, until further order by the Court. 2. Costs of the notice of motion filed on 28 November 2025 be costs in the cause.
The owners corporation sought to re-open a concluded hearing regarding building defects, arguing that the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) did not apply and that the tribunal's orders were flawed. The tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the owners corporation had not presented sufficient grounds for the re-opening. The tribunal reserved the issue of costs, which was to be determined with the costs of the original proceedings.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – reopening of hearing after final decision – power to re-open – exercise of discretion – applicable principles
Before
G Sarginson, Deputy President
Hearing
4 December 2025
File Numbers
Case Number 2022/00400982; Case Number 2023/00385628; Case Number 2023/00414656
Matched Strata Plans
SP102171
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Case Number 2022/00400982 P Bambagiotti (Applicant) R Wathukarage (Second Respondent) Case Number 2022/00414656 R Wathukarage (Applicant) Solicitors: Case Number 2022/00400982 Bannermans...
Orders
(1) The application by The Owners-Strata Plan No 102171 to re-open is dismissed. (2) Costs of the application to re-open are reserved, and are to be determined with the costs of the substantive proceedings. (3) Time for compliance with order 7(a) of the Tribunal dated 20 November 2025 is extended to 14 days from the date of this decision. (4) Time for compliance with order 7(b) of the Tribunal dated 20 November 2025 is extended to 28 days from the date of this decision. (5) Time for...
A lot owner in an apartment building sought to invalidate several resolutions passed by the owners corporation, mainly related to window replacement. The tribunal decided that the resolutions were valid because the window replacement project was considered sustainability infrastructure, and the owners corporation had met the necessary requirements. The application was dismissed.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 — Whether resolution valid — Statutory interpretation — Meaning of sustainability infrastructure resolution
Before
Dr K M George, Senior Member
Hearing
30 September 2025
File Numbers
2025/00188134
Matched Strata Plans
SP6544
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: N. Simone (respondent) Solicitors: B. Stanton (applicant) Meridian Lawyers (respondent)
Orders
1 The application is dismissed.
The owners corporation sought rectification of building defects against the builder and developer. The Tribunal ordered the builder and developer to rectify the identified defects. The builder's and developer's claims against each other were dismissed.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – related proceedings - statutory warranties – breach – whether evidence sufficient make work order – whether major defect established – whether builder liable to indemnify developer
Before
G Sarginson, Deputy President
Hearing
27 and 28 August 2024; 16 December 2024; submissions to 5 February 2025
File Numbers
Case Number 2022/00400982; Case Number 2023/00385628; Case Number 2023/00414656
Matched Strata Plans
SP102171
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Case Number 2022/00400982 P Bambagiotti (Applicant) R Wathukarage (Second Respondent) Case Number 2023/00385628 D Woods (Respondent) Case Number 2023/00414656 R Wathukarage (Applicant)...
Orders
(1) In Case Number 2022/00400982, Ceerose Pty Ltd and Zone Q Milsons Point Development Pty Ltd are to perform, or cause the performance of, the scope of works identified in paragraph [494] of the reasons and the references to the Joint Tender Bundle referred to therein by 20 March 2026. (2) The work in order 1 is to be performed by suitably licensed and insured persons or entities using due care and skill. (3) The Owners-Strata Plan No 102171 is to provide reasonable access to the strata...
An Owners Corporation sued a developer alleging building defects. The tribunal had to decide whether to order repairs (works order) or payment of money. The tribunal decided to order the developer to pay money to the Owners Corporation to fix the defects, but further hearings were needed to determine the precise amount.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – residential building work in a strata scheme – home building claim on remitter from Appeal Panel – breaches of statutory warranties in Home Building Act 1989 - preliminary issues in redetermination proceeding – work order (s 48MA) or money order (s 48O(1)(a)) –...
Before
D G Charles, Senior Member
Hearing
17 July 2025
File Numbers
2021/000371562
Matched Strata Plans
SP100533
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J Knackstreedt (Applicant) S Phillips (First Respondent) Solicitors: Bugden Allen (Applicant) Vincent Young (First Respondent)
Orders
(1) In respect of Preliminary Issue 1 – Work Order or Money Order, the Tribunal determines that as against the first respondent, Roxy Pacific Killara Pty Ltd, and in favour of the applicant, The Owners – Strata Plan 100533, there should be an order to pay money in an amount to be determined by the Tribunal after directions have taken their course as regards the receipt of further evidence relating to the quantum of the said money order, and after account is taken of the Tribunal’s decision...
The Owners Corporation sought orders from the Tribunal regarding alleged building defects. The Tribunal decided to order the developer to pay a monetary amount to address the building defects. Costs for the hearing of the preliminary issues were ordered to be costs in the cause, pending redetermination of the primary proceedings.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – residential building work in a strata scheme – home building claim on remitter from Appeal Panel – breaches of statutory warranties in Home Building Act 1989 - preliminary issues in redetermination proceeding – work order (s 48MA) or money order (s 48O(1)(a)) –...
Before
D G Charles, Senior Member
Hearing
17 July 2025
File Numbers
2021/000371562
Matched Strata Plans
SP100533
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J Knackstreedt (Applicant) S Phillips (First Respondent) Solicitors: Bugden Allen (Applicant) Vincent Young (First Respondent)
Orders
(1) In respect of Preliminary Issue 1 – Work Order or Money Order, the Tribunal determines that as against the first respondent, Roxy Pacific Killara Pty Ltd, and in favour of the applicant, The Owners – Strata Plan 100533, there should be an order to pay money in an amount to be determined by the Tribunal after directions have taken their course as regards the receipt of further evidence relating to the quantum of the said money order, and after account is taken of the Tribunal’s decision...
The owners corporation sought to have the building manager terminated and sought a refund of fees. The Tribunal dismissed the application to terminate the building manager and also dismissed the building manager's application for costs. The Tribunal found the building manager's conduct in the proceedings justified not awarding costs to the building manager.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – removal of building manager – disclosure of interests – connected persons – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 7, 71, 72, Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW) reg 62 COSTS – ordinary costs rules – costs application out of time – delinquent...
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00344511
Matched Strata Plans
SP100339
Parties
Owners Corporation v Managing Agent
Representation
Mr D Sachs, SG Lawyers (applicant) Madison Marcus Law Firm (respondent)
Orders
(1) Order that a further hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) Refuse and dismiss the respondent’s application for costs. (3) Accordingly, confirm that there is no order made as to the costs of the proceedings.
The owners corporation sought to terminate the building manager's contract, citing issues with performance and allegedly unfair charges. The tribunal found that the owners corporation did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate the building manager had breached the contract or acted unfairly, and dismissed the application. The tribunal made no cost orders.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – removal of building manager – disclosure of interests – connected persons – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 7, 71, 72, Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW) reg 62
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
25 February 2025
File Numbers
2024/00344511
Matched Strata Plans
SP100339
Parties
Owners Corporation v Managing Agent
Representation
Mr F Schmidt, secretary of owners corporation (applicant) Mr C Koikas, counsel, instructed by Madison Marcus Lawyers (respondent)
Orders
Application dismissed.
An applicant developer sought to appeal a freezing order made to protect funds for building defect claims. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the freezing order was correctly applied as there was a danger the developer would distribute profits and leave the owners corporation without a remedy.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – interlocutory decision – decision to grant freezing orders – whether primary judge erred in determining that the Court had jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against the appellant – whether ‘ordinary course of business’ transactions...
Before
Mitchelmore JA at [1]; Ball JA at [36]; Free JA at [37]
Hearing
27 May 2025
File Numbers
2025/00090673
Matched Strata Plans
SP102081
Parties
Developer v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: D T Miller SC / S D Puttick (Applicant) D S Weinberger / L J McIntyre (Respondent) Solicitors: Keystone Lawyers (Applicant) JS Mueller & Co Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
The summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
The tenant sought the return of her rental bond after a dispute involving damage to common property. The tribunal found the tenant did not breach any by-laws or the residential tenancy agreement regarding her dog and the lift incident. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the full bond be returned to the tenant, dismissing the landlord's claim for damages.
LEASE AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – residential tenancy agreement for strata unit - damage to lift in common property of strata scheme allegedly caused by tenant – whether lift is common property or within definition of ‘residential premises’ in s 62 of the Residential...
Before
S A McDonald, Senior Member
Hearing
8 April 2025
File Numbers
2024/00483925; 2025/00005506
Matched Strata Plans
SP92334
Parties
Third Party v Lot Owner
Representation
Proceedings 2024/00483925 Applicant (self-represented) Respondent (self-represented) Proceedings 2025/00005506 Applicant (self-represented) Respondent (self-represented)
Orders
(1) In respect of Case No. 2024/00483925, the Tribunal directs Rental Bond Services to pay the whole of Rental Bond Number T467279-6 to the applicant/tenant, Ms Michie Huggonson. (2) In respect of Case No. 2025/00005506, the application is dismissed.
The Owners Corporation, seeking compensation for building defects, requested a freezing order to prevent the developer from disposing of assets. The court, finding a risk of asset dissipation, granted the order. The developer was ordered to pay the Owners Corporation's costs.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – freezing orders – where plaintiff owners corporation seeks freezing order against defendant developer – where reasonable to infer defendant developer will sell remaining four residential units and not retain the proceeds of sale – whether a danger that...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
6 February 2025
File Numbers
2023/201402
Matched Strata Plans
SP102081
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: D Weinberger (Plaintiff/Applicant) F P Hicks SC (Second Defendant/Respondent) Solicitors: J S Mueller & Co (Plaintiff/Applicant) Keystone Lawyers Pty Limited (Defendants/Respondent)
Orders
Plaintiff’s application for freezing order granted
The owners corporation applied for a penalty against lot owners for breaching a parking by-law. The tribunal found the lot owners had breached the by-law and ordered them to pay a fine. The tribunal was satisfied the notice to comply with by-law was valid.
LAND LAW---Strata title--- -s 147 Strata Schemes Management Act 2015---Parking on common property---Service of notices to comply with by-laws---Whether contravention of notices to comply established---Applicable penalty
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
18 September 2023; 6 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/00390301 (Previously SC 23/28206)
Matched Strata Plans
SP92334
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Applicant)
Orders
(1) The respondents Peng Zheng and Ning Lu are to pay the applicant The Owners Strata Plan No 92334 the amount of $550 by 14 days from the date of this decision. (2) The applicant is to file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondents, by person or by post and additionally by email, all costs submissions and documents by 14 days from the date of this decision. (3) The respondents are to file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant by person or by post and additionally by email, all...
An owners corporation sought orders against a lot owner to remove items stored on common property, remove unauthorized alterations and not park vehicles on common property. The tribunal dismissed the application finding that the owners corporation did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The tribunal ordered the parties to file costs submissions and documents.
LAND LAW---Strata title---Storage of items on common property---Unauthorised alterations to common property---Whether Lot owner should be ordered to remove items and alterations
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
1 June 2023
File Numbers
2022/00394252 (previously SC 22/56548)
Matched Strata Plans
SP8461
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J. Young (Applicant) Solicitors: DEA Lawyers (Applicant) Spiers Ryan (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The application is dismissed. (2) Any costs application is to be dealt with as follows: (a) The costs applicant is to file with the Tribunal and serve on the costs respondent all costs submissions and documents by 16 January 2024. (b) The costs respondent is to file with the Tribunal and serve on the costs applicant all costs submissions and documents by 30 January 2024. (c) The costs applicant is to file with the Tribunal and serve on the costs respondent all costs submissions in reply...
The applicant sought to appeal a decision, but the appeal was refused. The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis. The costs were to be paid from contributions levied in respect of lots other than lots owned by the respondents.
APPEAL – costs of appeal from interlocutory order of Consumer and Commercial Division – privilege attaching to expert report
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00309720
Matched Strata Plans
SP16857
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: D Knoll AM (Respondents) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Appellant) DEA Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondents)
Orders
(1) A hearing of the application for costs is dispensed with. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed, or failing agreement as assessed. (3) Such costs must only be paid from contributions levied in respect of lots other than lots owned by the respondents.
The Owners Corporation appealed an interlocutory order regarding the production of an expert report. The tribunal ruled that the report was not subject to legal privilege and must be produced, and the appeal was dismissed. The reasons for the decision were related to evidence presented about the purpose of the report.
APPEAL – from interlocutory order of Consumer and Commercial Division – privilege attaching to expert report – whether dominant purpose of report was draft for consultation or lodgment in the Tribunal
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member
Hearing
28 October 2022
File Numbers
2022/00309720
Matched Strata Plans
SP16857
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: Mr D Knoll AM (First and Second Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Appellant) DEA Lawyers Pty Ltd (First and Second Respondent)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal is refused. (2) The non-disclosure order in respect of the Report and stay made 28 October 2022 shall continue for a period of 14 days from the publication of this decision to the parties. (3) The respondents are to lodge submissions and evidence in support of their costs application with the Appeal Registry and give them to the appellant within 14 days of the publication of these orders. (4) Any submissions and evidence in response to the costs application are to be...
The Owners Corporation appealed a decision ordering them to repair common property to prevent water ingress and pay compensation for lost rent to the lot owners. The appeal was dismissed, meaning the original orders, including the compensation and repair obligations, remained in effect because the Tribunal found no grounds for the appeal.
APPEAL – no question of law – leave to appeal – decision not against the weight of evidence – leave refused – appeal dismissed. LAND LAW - Strata title – owners corporation breached the duty to properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property - Whether the...
Before
K Rosser, Principal Member P H Molony, Senior Member
Hearing
26 May 2022
File Numbers
2022-0053094
Matched Strata Plans
SP19410
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: T Harris-Roxas (Appellant) J Mack (Respondents) Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley (Appellant) Harris Freidman Lawyers (Respondents)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal refused. (2) Appeal dismissed. (3) If the parties are able to agree on costs, they should file proposed consent order within 21 days of the date of the orders in these reasons for decision. (4) If the parties are not in agreement as to the costs of the proceedings, then: (a) if any party seeks a costs order, the applicant for costs (the costs applicant) must file and serve a costs application, submissions which shall be limited to 2000 words, and any evidence in support...
APPEAL – Costs of discontinued appeal - whether special circumstances established pursuant to s 60(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Before
I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00198659
Matched Strata Plans
SP76312
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Solicitors: Brander Smith McKnight (Appellants) G & S Law Group (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of the Respondent’s application for the costs of the appeal. (2) The Appellants are to pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed on a party and party basis. (3) The name of the First Appellant is amended to Ying Kit Li.
The applicant sought an order for the owners corporation to make a by-law granting them exclusive use of common property. The tribunal found that the applicant's failure to specify the basis of their claim caused unnecessary costs to the respondent. The tribunal ordered the applicant to pay 60% of the respondent's costs.
COSTS – Whether there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs
Before
D Moujalli, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC21/22078
Matched Strata Plans
SP6544
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: R Lovas (Applicant) Solicitors: Lawyers Chambers (Applicant) Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
1. That a hearing on the question of costs can be dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 2. The applicant to pay 60% of the respondent’s costs of the proceeding on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
The applicants sought orders against the owners corporation related to mould in their lot. The tribunal ruled that the owners corporation had breached its duty to maintain common property and ordered the corporation to conduct remedial works and pay damages for the applicant's loss of rent due to the mold. The tribunal dismissed the remainder of the application.
LAND LAW - Strata title – Whether the owners corporation breached the duty to properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property - Whether the owners corporation is liable to carry out remedial works - Whether the owners corporation is liable for damages for...
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
19 January 2022
File Numbers
SC 20/46971
Matched Strata Plans
SP19410
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: J Mack (Applicants) T Harris-Roxas (Respondent) Solicitors: Harris Freidman Lawyers (Applicants) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The respondent is to carry out items 6 limited to the presence of mould on the outer wall of the second bedroom, and 7 when read with item 8, of the remedial works specified in [20] of these reasons for decision by 24 May 2022 at no cost to the applicants conditional on the applicants providing reasonable access to lot 43. (2) Conditional on the applicants providing reasonable access to lot 43, leave is given to the applicants to renew the proceedings under cl 8(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil...
An apartment owner appealed a tribunal decision regarding water damage to his unit. The appeal was dismissed because he did not provide necessary documentation and, upon learning of his maintenance responsibilities under the by-laws, acknowledged his appeal was without merit.
APPEAL – failure by appellant to provide recording and transcript of proceedings from which appeal is brought STRATA TITLES LAW – exclusive use and enjoyment by appellant of area created by by-law – by-law provided for appellant to be responsible to keep area in good repair – held appellant...
Before
The Hon F Marks Principal Member K Ransome Senior Member
Hearing
4 November 2021
File Numbers
2021/100226617
Matched Strata Plans
SP75666
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant self-represented Makinson and d’Apice (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal refused. (2) Appeal dismissed.
The applicant, a strata plan, sought orders related to trees on the respondent's land that obstructed views from their building. The court made orders based on the parties' agreement, requiring removal and replanting of the bamboo, and sharing the costs.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2A application – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether trees are planted to form a hedge – whether the obstruction is severe – strata plan as applicant in proceedings pursuant to Pt 2A of the Trees Act – whether an owner or occupier has lost access...
Before
Galwey AC
Hearing
21 October 2021
File Numbers
2021/203854
Matched Strata Plans
SP16857
Parties
Owners Corporation v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: L Sims (Applicant) T Ward (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Bick & Steele (Applicant) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
See orders at [13]
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many strata schemes does Strata Choice Pty Ltd manage in NSW?
- Strata Choice Pty Ltd manages around 850 strata schemes (around 39,000 total lots) across 165 suburbs in New South Wales, based on the NSW StrataHub register.
- What areas does Strata Choice Pty Ltd provide strata management in?
- Strata Choice Pty Ltd is most active in Punchbowl, Potts Point, Sydney, covering 165 suburbs across NSW in total.
- Does Strata Choice Pty Ltd specialise in residential or commercial strata?
- Strata Choice Pty Ltd manages primarily residential (83% residential, 6% commercial).
- What is the average scheme size managed by Strata Choice Pty Ltd?
- Strata Choice Pty Ltd manages schemes averaging 47 lots each, compared to the NSW state average of approximately 20 lots per scheme.
- Is Strata Choice Pty Ltd a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW?
- Yes, Strata Choice Pty Ltd is a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW.
- Does Strata Choice Pty Ltd have any NSW Fair Trading enforcement actions?
- Strata Choice 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 Strata Choice Pty Ltd?
- 21 tribunal or court cases involving schemes managed by Strata Choice Pty Ltd appear in NSW caselaw records since 2021.
- What is Strata Choice Pty Ltd's NSW strata management licence number?
- Strata Choice Pty Ltd's NSW licence number is 224770, issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.