Strata Real Estate Services Pty Ltd manages 192 strata schemes totalling 3,147 lots across NSW. It has a broad geographic spread across 64 suburbs, with Manly as its largest market (20%). AGM compliance stands at 75%, above the average of 70% across all managers. Its schemes have been involved in 11 tribunal and court decisions since 2021 (5 at NCAT, 4 in the Supreme Court, 2 in the Court of Appeal), one of the higher litigation counts and rates among NSW managers. Of these, 8 resulted in orders being made and 3 were dismissed. A compulsory strata manager has been appointed in one case.
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 16.4 lots.
The portfolio is dominated by small schemes (10 lots or fewer), typical of townhouse and villa complexes.
Portfolio Age
21
1960s
44
1970s
30
1980s
33
1990s
45
2000s
18
2010s
1
2020s
Schemes by registration decade.
Oldest scheme registered 1962, newest 2023.
“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...”
5 ★Lyndall Phelps11 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...”
5 ★Mal Fraser14 Nov 2025
“Adam Tyrrell is our new strata manager at Strata Real Estate Services. Adam is a skilled, knowledgeable and professional manager and is extremely prompt in answering queries and following up on issues concerning our strata scheme. Thank you Adam for managing our scheme.”
5 ★roger m15 Jul 2025
“Melissa Kennedy was highly recommended to us by a committee member from another owner’s corporation praising the approval rating she had been given for her commendable service in her role as Strata Manager from SRES, Strata Real Estate Services.
I have found Mellissa to be very professional...”
4 ★Lynn Hutchinson11 Aug 2025
“We would like to thank Jason and his team at Strata Real Estate Services for their professionalism and respect. We live in a block of units designed for over 55 and people with disabilities.Their level of empathy and understanding is second to none.”
Tribunal & Court History
11
Total Cases
5
NCAT
4
Supreme Court
2
Court of Appeal
1.6
Adverse per 100 Schemes
5.7
Total per 100 Schemes
1
Compulsory Manager Appts
11 cases since 2021.
Of these, 3 resulted in substantive orders (including 1 compulsory manager appointment). The remaining 8 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
The owners corporation sought orders regarding the use of common property. The tribunal found the lot owners' parking of a pram and e-bike on common property constituted a nuisance, violating the Act. Therefore, orders were made in favor of the owners corporation.
Common propertyNoise & nuisance
LAND LAW - STRATA TITLE – obligations of owners and occupiers - use of lot in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance – whether e-bike and pram left on common property causes a nuisance or hazard to other occupiers of lots – meaning of nuisance in context of strata scheme – nature of a...
Before
M Tyson, Senior Member
Hearing
18 March 2025
File Numbers
2024/00307559
Matched Strata Plans
SP3407
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Mr. Davis (applicant) Self-represented by the first respondent (first and second respondent)
Orders
1. The respondents are ordered, pursuant to ss. 232 and 241 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, to remove immediately the pram and the e-bike parked by them on level 6 of the residential building in Strata Plan No. 3407 and being part of the common property of Strata Plan No. 3407.
The Owners Corporation sought orders regarding an encroachment on common property involving a walkway and stairs. The court found that the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 (NSW) does apply in this instance. The court ordered that the parties bring in short minutes of order and set a date for further directions.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Separate determination of questions — Whether the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 (NSW) applies to the encroachment onto public road — Where adjacent owner is the relevant road authority
Before
Ball J
Hearing
13 July 2023
File Numbers
2019/232774
Matched Strata Plans
SP97600
Parties
Owners Corporation v Government
Representation
Counsel: MR Pesman SC with P Bambagiotti (Plaintiff) IG Roberts SC with M Harker (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Grace Lawyers (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Third Defendant)
Court of AppealDismissedLow[2021] NSWCA 2422021-10-13
Natalia Trentelman appealed the decision of the lower court. The Owners Corporation had established a proprietary estoppel for the use of a swimming pool. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original order for an easement in favor of the Owners Corporation.
Parking & access
ESTOPPEL – proprietary estoppel – encouragement – nature of promise – strata title – promise of easement – whether representation sufficiently clear – where representation made at general meeting – where representation did not define the interest in property the representee was expected to...
Before
Bathurst CJ at [1]; Bell P at [170]; Leeming JA at [171]
Hearing
7, 8 July 2021
File Numbers
2021/101998; 2021/102010
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: M Ashhurst SC with G Farland (Appellant) E Peden SC with J Mee (First Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Appellant) Strata Advisory Services (First Respondent)
Orders
1 Trentelman v The Owners – Strata Plan No 76700; Proceedings No 2021/102010 (1) Appeal dismissed. (2) Order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. 2 Trentelman v The Owners – Strata Plan No 76700; Proceedings No 2021/101998 (1) Appeal dismissed. (2) Order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
The applicant, an owners corporation, sought an extension of time to appeal a costs order. The tribunal dismissed the application, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs and that those costs be paid via levies on all lots, excluding the respondent's.
COSTS - no question of principle
Before
G Curtin SC, Senior Member J McAteer, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2021/00108268
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: T Davie (Respondent) Solicitors: I A McNight (Appellant) Bannermans Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to extend time to appeal as agreed or assessed. (3) Pursuant to s 90 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) such costs must only be paid from contributions levied in respect of lots other than the respondent’s lot.
An owner sought to vary strata levies to reflect reallocated unit entitlements. The Tribunal dismissed the application because the proceedings were not properly constituted, and, even if they were, the Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion to vary the levies, considering factors like the owner's delay in seeking reallocation and potential financial detriment to other owners.
Levies & contributions
APPEAL – strata scheme – reallocation of unit entitlements – application to vary past contributions in line with new allocation of unit entitlements – application of s 87 of Act – denial of procedural fairness – exercise of discretion – while error of law found no error in exercise of discretion
An Owners Corporation sought to extend the time to appeal a costs decision. The tribunal refused the extension because of the long delay in appealing and the lack of a sufficient explanation for it.
APPEALS — procedure — time limits — extension of time — principles — delay of two years — no question of principle
Before
G Curtin SC, Senior Member J McAteer, Senior Member
Hearing
22 June 2021
File Numbers
2021/00108268
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: J Mee (Appellant) T Davie (Respondent) Solicitors: I A McKnight (Appellant) Bannermans Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Application to extend time to appeal dismissed. (2) If any party desires to make an application for costs of the application to extend time: (a) that party is to so inform the other party within 14 days of the date of these reasons; (b) the applicant for costs is to lodge with the Appeal Panel and serve on the respondent to the costs application any written submissions of no more than five pages on or before 14 days from the date of these reasons; (c) the respondent to any costs...
The applicant, a lot owner, sought the appointment of a strata manager to manage the owners corporation's finances due to unpaid debts. The tribunal found the management of the owners corporation was dysfunctional and ordered the appointment of a strata manager, and an auditor to investigate the owners corporation's finances.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Strata managing agent — Auditor
Before
W Priestley, General Member
Hearing
22 April 2021
File Numbers
SC 20/48122
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: T David (Applicant) J Mee (Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) Sarvas Ciappara Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. The application for an adjournment is refused. 2. Strata Plus Pty Ltd (ABN 30 096 175 709) (”Strata Plus”) be appointed as managing agent for Strata Plan 76700, on the terms set out in the Strata Management Agency Agreement attached to the letter from its Managing director dated 21 April 2021, to exercise specified functions of the owners corporation pursuant to section 237 (1) (b) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 to; (a) take steps to arrange payment to the applicant of the...
The Owners Corporation sought to obtain ownership of a swimming pool on a lot owned by the defendant. The court found that the Owners Corporation's claim based on proprietary estoppel was upheld, though not contract. The defendant's claim regarding the pool notation also failed. The court then addressed the issue of cost allocation for the different proceedings.
Parking & access
COSTS – party/party – claim based on alleged promises about future access to property – where plaintiff did not fully articulate a claim for proprietary estoppel before oral opening submissions and defendant obtained adjournment – where plaintiff ultimately succeeded on basis of proprietary...
Before
Parker J
Hearing
30 March; 6 April 2021; further written submissions ending 26 April 2021
File Numbers
2018/312426; 2018/328341
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: 2018/312426 M Ashhurst SC/G Farland (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) E Peden SC/ J Mee (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant) 2018/328341 E Peden SC/ J Mee (Plaintiff) M Ashhurst SC/G Farland...
Court of AppealOrders MadeMediumAdverse[2021] NSWCA 622021-04-19
An apartment owner sought a stay of execution of previous court orders regarding access to a swimming pool. The tribunal dismissed part of the application, so the original orders allowing the owners corporation access to the pool would come into effect. The court reserved the question of costs, and granted liberty to apply on two business days’ notice.
PRACTICE - stay of execution pending appeal - appropriateness of interlocutory relief - appeal concedely reasonably arguable - whether appellant had established significantly greater prospect of success - balance of convenience - application for stay pending appeal refused
Before
Leeming JA
Hearing
19 April 2021
File Numbers
2021/102010
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: M Ashhurst SC (Applicant) E Peden SC, J Mee (Respondent Solicitors: Bannermans (Applicant) Strata Advisory Services (Respondent)
Orders
1. Grant liberty to apply in respect of the interlocutory regime on 2 business days’ notice. 2. Dismiss paragraph 2 of the notice of motion filed 13 April 2021. 3. Reserve the question of costs of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Motion filed 13 April 2021.
The owners corporation sought rights to use a swimming pool. The tribunal found a promise of use had been made, and ordered an easement in favor of the corporation. The tribunal dismissed a cross-claim related to a pool notation.
Parking & access
EQUITY – estoppel – proprietary estoppel – promise to give continued use of swimming pool – to be satisfied by order requiring grant of easement – form of easement – whether order should be accompanied by injunction to secure use of pool pending registration of easement – equity regards as done...
Before
Parker J
Hearing
30 March; 6 April 2021
File Numbers
2018/312426; 2018/328341
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: 2018/312426 M Ashhurst SC/G Farland (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) E Peden SC/ J Mee (First Defendant/Cross-Claimant) 2018/328341 E Peden SC/ J Mee (Plaintiff) M Ashhurst SC/G Farland...
The Strata Corporation sought an easement or transfer of land for a swimming pool. The court decided the Corporation was entitled to an easement, but the corporation's claim and the lot owner's claim regarding the pool notation failed. The court adjourned the proceedings for the parties to agree on the form of orders and costs.
Common propertyParking & access
CONTRACT – formation and validity – proposal by owner of development lots to convert lots into non-strata blocks and build townhouses of specified height – cooperation of strata corporation required – development lot owner promised proposal would result in continuing access for strata owners to...
Before
Parker J
Hearing
9 March; 4, 6 and 7 May; 11 June; further written evidence and submissions ending 17 December 2020
File Numbers
2018/312426; 2018/328341
Matched Strata Plans
SP76700
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: 2018/312426 M Ashhurst SC/G Farland (Plaintiff) E Peden SC/ J Mee (First Defendant) 2018/328341 E Peden SC/ J Mee (Plaintiff) M Ashhurst SC/G Farland (Defendant) Solicitors: 2018/312426...