Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 16,966 (95%)
Commercial 860 (5%)
Utility 108 (1%)
Other 18 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 21.6 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 1961, newest 2023.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mosman 2088 | 90 | 908 | 11% | 8.8% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 66 | 1,080 | 8% | 13.9% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 54 | 757 | 6% | 11.4% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 45 | 944 | 5% | 14.6% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 45 | 627 | 5% | 15.2% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 27 | 554 | 3% | 13.9% | |
| Artarmon 2064 | 26 | 750 | 3% | 15.0% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 24 | 355 | 3% | 14.8% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 24 | 276 | 3% | 8.2% | |
| Manly 2095 | 22 | 688 | 3% | 3.0% |
| Cremorne Point 2090 | 19 | 176 | 2% | 11.9% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 17 | 1,273 | 2% | 26.2% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 16 | 309 | 2% | 8.4% | |
| Waverton 2060 | 16 | 123 | 2% | 13.1% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 15 | 804 | 2% | 3.0% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 12 | 558 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 12 | 290 | 1% | 6.1% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 11 | 185 | 1% | 4.5% | |
| Kurraba Point 2089 | 11 | 150 | 1% | 5.2% | |
| Mona Vale 2103 | 10 | 330 | 1% | 4.6% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 9 | 595 | 1% | 9.9% | |
| Naremburn 2065 | 9 | 161 | 1% | 9.0% | |
| Northbridge 2063 | 9 | 152 | 1% | 15.3% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 9 | 127 | 1% | 11.7% | |
| Newport 2106 | 9 | 123 | 1% | 5.6% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 8 | 523 | 1% | 3.7% | |
| Roseville 2069 | 8 | 137 | 1% | 9.4% | |
| Lindfield 2070 | 8 | 154 | 1% | 7.8% | |
| Mcmahons Point 2060 | 8 | 67 | 1% | 9.5% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 7 | 1,347 | 1% | 7.6% | |
| Milsons Point 2061 | 7 | 415 | 1% | 12.1% | |
| Lavender Bay 2060 | 7 | 221 | 1% | 17.9% | |
| Gordon 2072 | 7 | 202 | 1% | 9.0% | |
| North Willoughby 2068 | 6 | 85 | 1% | 15.4% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 5 | 113 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 5 | 19 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 4 | 47 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Killara 2071 | 4 | 50 | 0% | 4.8% | |
| Epping 2121 | 4 | 63 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 4 | 29 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 4 | 23 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 4 | 27 | 0% | 3.9% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 3 | 107 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 3 | 102 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 3 | 88 | 0% | 4.1% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 3 | 43 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 3 | 75 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 3 | 45 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 3 | 59 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 3 | 20 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 3 | 30 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 3 | 22 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 3 | 23 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 3 | 16 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Warrawee 2074 | 2 | 69 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 2 | 80 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 2 | 51 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Lane Cove West 2066 | 2 | 38 | 0% | 7.4% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 2 | 63 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| West Pennant Hills 2125 | 2 | 52 | 0% | 3.1% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 2 | 48 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 2 | 40 | 0% | 4.9% | |
| Fairlight 2094 | 2 | 24 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Mount Kuring-Gai 2080 | 2 | 36 | 0% | 8.0% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Belrose 2085 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 4.7% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 2 | 23 | 0% | 2.1% | |
| Frenchs Forest 2086 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 3.5% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 2 | 21 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 2 | 16 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Avalon Beach 2107 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Palm Beach 2108 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Freshwater 2096 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Gosford 2250 | 1 | 99 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Winston Hills 2153 | 1 | 79 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 1 | 48 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 38 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Kingsgrove 2208 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 1.5% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 1 | 31 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Lewisham 2049 | 1 | 30 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Merrylands West 2160 | 1 | 28 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Bowral 2576 | 1 | 27 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| La Perouse 2036 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Curl Curl 2096 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Queenscliff 2096 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Terrey Hills 2084 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Enmore 2042 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 3.2% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Little Bay 2036 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Beecroft 2119 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| The Entrance North 2261 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Cromer 2099 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Birchgrove 2041 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| East Killara 2071 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Warriewood 2102 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Killarney Heights 2087 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Collaroy 2097 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Brookvale 2100 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Ingleburn 2565 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Wahroonga 2076 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Somersby 2250 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Sussex Inlet 2540 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Avoca Beach 2251 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.8% |
Tribunal & Court History
8
Total Cases
8
NCAT
0.1
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.0
Total per 100 Schemes
8 cases since 2021. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 7 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 1
Dismissed 7
Common property 3
By-law enforcement 2
Compulsory appointment 1
Repair & maintenance 1
Parking & access 1
The applicant sought an order relating to a special by-law for exclusive use of the common property roof void for storage. The tribunal found that the owners corporation did not unreasonably refuse consent to the by-law. The application was therefore dismissed.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – meaning of “change in permitted land use” in s 236(1)(c) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 LAND LAW - strata title - whether common property rights by-law unreasonably refused - adequacy of reasons - consideration of applicable principles
Before
R. Alkadamani, Senior Member
Hearing
12 September 2025
File Numbers
2024/00172633
Matched Strata Plans
SP100847
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: R. Notley (Applicant) T. Bateman (Respondent) Solicitors: Holman Webb (Applicant) Strata Title Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Grant leave to either party to file and serve any submissions within 7 days of the date of these orders as to whether Ms Smedley should be joined as a party. (2) In the event that a party files and serves any submissions pursuant to the preceding order, the other party may file and serve any submissions in response within 7 days thereafter. (3) Direct that the respondent’s solicitor notify Ms Smedley of these orders or advise the Tribunal within 7 days if that is inconvenient or opposed....
Lot owners appealed a decision that the owners corporation was not responsible for the owners' loss of rent. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the owners had not proven the loss was directly caused by the owners corporation's failure to maintain common property. The owners were ordered to pay the owners corporation's costs of the appeal.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Liability of owners corporation – Whether loss of rent of the owners was caused by the failure of the owners corporation to repair the common property
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member D Fairlie, Senior Member
Hearing
3 April 2023
File Numbers
2023/00002315
Matched Strata Plans
SP1418
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: P Horobin (First and Second Appellants) C Purdy (Respondent) Solicitors: Cordato Partners Lawyers (First and Second Appellants) Holman Webb (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The appellants are to pay the costs of the respondent of the appeal on the ordinary basis. (3) If the respondent wishes to vary order (2) above and the parties are in agreement, then they are to file proposed consent orders with the Registry within 14 days of the date of this decision. (4) If the respondent wishes to vary order (2) above and the parties are not in agreement, then: (a) the respondent is to file and serve within 14 days of the date of this...
A lot owner appealed a decision requiring her to allow the owners corporation access to her lot for common property work and dismissing her cross-claim for a by-law. The appeal was about whether the tribunal had properly engaged with her arguments and provided adequate reasons. The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal found the original decision and reasoning were adequate.
APPEALS- Error of law- failure to engage with Appellant’s case- adequacy of reasons for decision. LAND LAW- Strata title- Owners’ corporation – Powers - functions of owners corporation - changes to common property- rooftop fencing - validity of resolution- entitlement of owners’ corporation and...
Before
D Charles, Senior Member J S Currie, Senior Member
Hearing
6 October 2022
File Numbers
2022/ 00222717
Matched Strata Plans
SP17676
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: Nil Solicitors: Chambers Russell Lawyers (Appellant) Strata Title Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) If either party seeks an order for the costs of the appeal that party (the Costs Applicant) must give to the Tribunal and the other party (the Costs Respondent) that application and any supporting submissions within 21 days of the date of these orders. (3) The Costs Respondent must give the Tribunal and the Costs Applicant any submissions in response to the costs application within 21 days of receiving the costs application. (4) Each party’s submissions...
The Appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay costs related to a previous application regarding alleged misleading conduct. The Appeal Panel reviewed the case, finding no errors in the initial decision and dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.
APPEAL - costs – leave to appeal – error of law – exercise of discretion
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member C Mulvey, Senior Member
Hearing
27 June 2022
File Numbers
2022/128363
Matched Strata Plans
SP3470
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (self-represented) Solicitors: Strata Title Lawyers (First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents)
Orders
1. Leave to appeal is refused. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. A hearing to determine the costs of the appeal is dispensed with. 4. Subject to the outcome of any costs application pursuant to order (5) below, each party is to bear its own costs of the appeal. 5. If any party wishes to make an application to vary orders (3) and (4) above, the applicant (the costs applicant) must file and serve a costs application, including submissions limited to five pages and any evidence in support, within...
A lot owner appealed two decisions of the tribunal but the appeal was dismissed because she couldn't demonstrate any legal error. The owners corporation's request for costs was also refused, meaning each party pays their own costs.
APPEALS — constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction APPEALS — Procedure — Time limits — Extension of time – application granted COSTS – appeal from exercise of discretion in finding special circumstances to make award for costs - appeal dismissed COSTS – application that the appellant pay...
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member D Fairlie, Senior Member
Hearing
20 June 2022
File Numbers
2022/00025115
Matched Strata Plans
SP16519
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Appellant (Self-represented) Strata Title Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) To the extent that it is necessary time for lodgment of the notice of appeal is extended to 27 January 2022. (2) The appeal against the decision of the Tribunal made on 21 December 2021 is dismissed. (3) The appeal against the decision of the Tribunal made on 14 March 2022 is dismissed. (4) The application of the respondent that the appellant pays its costs of and incidental to the appeal is dismissed.
Lot 2 owners sought an order that Lot 3 owners comply with noise by-laws by installing carpet. The tribunal decided that the Lot 3 owners met the required standards and were not in breach of the by-laws. The application was dismissed.
LAND LAW – Strata title – By-laws – Noise – Floor coverings – Interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot – Objective test
Before
P French, Senior Member
Hearing
20 January 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/35010
Matched Strata Plans
SP14531
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Applicants (Self-represented) Respondents (Self-represented)
Orders
(1) The application is dismissed.
An applicant sought various orders related to the strata committee and alleged irregularities. The tribunal dismissed the respondents' cost application for the main proceeding, but ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs related to an application for interim orders. The applicant also sought to remove the members from the strata committee.
COSTS – Strata interim and substantive applications – Interim application dismissed - Withdrawal of substantive application – Whether there are special circumstances in each proceeding warranting a costs order – Exercise of discretion as to costs
Before
D G Charles, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC 20/04566; SC 21/37001
Matched Strata Plans
SP3470
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Applicant (Self-represented) Solicitors: Strata Title Lawyers (Respondents)
Orders
(1) In the proceeding constituted by File No. SC 20/04566 the respondents’ application for costs is dismissed and the parties are to bear their own costs of the proceeding. (2) In the proceeding constituted by File No SC 21/37001 the applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of the interim orders application on 6 September 2021 on the ordinary basis as agreed or as assessed in accordance with the applicable costs legislation; otherwise, each party is to bear...
A lot owner applied for a compulsory strata manager, citing issues with common property alterations, retaining wall repairs, insurance, and financial management. The tribunal decided that the issues raised did not warrant a compulsory manager, and dismissed the application because the Owners Corporation was acting appropriately to address these matters.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The Tribunal was not satisfied the grounds put forward by the applicant warranted the appointment of a compulsory strata manager under s 237 of the SSMA.
LAND LAW — Strata schemes — Appointment of compulsory strata manager — Whether grounds for compulsory appointment established
Before
G Sarginson, Senior Member
Hearing
3 September 2021
File Numbers
SC 20/41336
Matched Strata Plans
SP8950
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Applicant (Self-Represented) K Yanez-Forrest (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The application is dismissed