Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 1,137 (96%)
Commercial 13 (1%)
Utility 33 (3%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 18.8 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 2020.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strathfield 2135 | 12 | 336 | 19% | 5.2% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 7 | 230 | 11% | 3.1% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 6 | 217 | 10% | 5.2% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 5 | 57 | 8% | 3.4% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 2 | 24 | 3% | 0.4% | |
| Berala 2141 | 2 | 16 | 3% | 1.8% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 2 | 16 | 3% | 0.9% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 2 | 14 | 3% | 0.4% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 2 | 14 | 3% | 3.1% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 2 | 4 | 3% | 0.4% |
| Pendle Hill 2145 | 1 | 39 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 1 | 33 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 1 | 18 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 1 | 16 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Enfield 2136 | 1 | 15 | 2% | 2.9% | |
| Lurnea 2170 | 1 | 14 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 12 | 2% | 1.1% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 12 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 1 | 11 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 11 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Wentworthville 2145 | 1 | 10 | 2% | 0.3% | |
| Jannali 2226 | 1 | 9 | 2% | 1.1% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 1 | 9 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Sefton 2162 | 1 | 9 | 2% | 3.7% | |
| Terrigal 2260 | 1 | 7 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 1 | 7 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 6 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 1 | 6 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 1 | 4 | 2% | 1.7% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 1 | 4 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 1 | 3 | 2% | 0.8% |
Tribunal & Court History
6
Total Cases
1
NCAT
4
Supreme Court
1
Court of Appeal
3.2
Adverse per 100 Schemes
9.5
Total per 100 Schemes
6 cases since 2022. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 4 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 6
Common property 1
Fire safety 1
The Owners Corporation sued for building and fire safety defects. The tribunal dismissed the claims on the effective height issue, and the builder/developer were found liable for the fire safety defects. Costs orders were made in favour of various parties.
COSTS – party/party – general rule that costs follow event – multiple discrete issues – whether decision on costs should be deferred pending reference of remaining issues COSTS – party/party – bases of quantification – indemnity basis – where offer of compromise made before hearing – defendants...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
On the papers; written submissions 24 January and 24 February 2025
File Numbers
2018/190513
Matched Strata Plans
SP82089
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: F Corsaro SC / D Byrne (First to Third & Sixth Defendants) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff) Norton Rose Fulbright (First to Third & Sixth Defendants)
Orders
Plaintiff to pay first and second defendants’ costs of the plaintiff’s fire defects effective height claim and third and sixth defendants’ costs generally; third and sixth defendants to have their costs on an indemnity basis from date of offer of compromise; first and second defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs of the balance of the plaintiff’s fire safety defects claim
An Owners Corporation sued the builder and developer over building and fire safety defects in the apartment building. The tribunal found in favor of the Owners Corporation on several claims, ordering the builder and developer to pay damages. The court also ordered a further assessment of a fire safety issue regarding the building's height.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – contract – defects – where first defendant builder and second defendant developer entered building contract – where plaintiff owners corporation alleges general and fire safety defects – where principal claim arises from contention that the “effective height” of...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
11-15 November 2024; further submissions 18, 19 & 20 November 2024
File Numbers
2018/190513
Matched Strata Plans
SP82089
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: M Ashhurst SC / C Mobellan (Plaintiff) F Corsaro SC / D Byrne (First to Third & Sixth Defendants) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff) Norton Rose Fulbright (First to Third & Sixth Defendants)
Orders
Effective Height of the Building is 25 metres; first and second defendants liable in relation to remaining fire safety defects; claim against third defendant fails
The Owners Corporation sought to amend its claim against the builder and developer due to building defects. The tribunal allowed the amendment, permitting the Owners Corporation to add a new allegation about a contract between the developer and Omaya Investments. The Owners Corporation must pay costs thrown away by the amendment and its costs in the cause will be its costs in the cause.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – amendment – where plaintiff seeks to exercise liberty to replead allegations against the third defendant – whether prejudice to the third defendant by reason of delay and other matters CIVIL PROCEDURE – admissions – where plaintiff’s proposed amended list statement...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
13 September 2024; further submissions 17 September 2024
File Numbers
2018/190513
Matched Strata Plans
SP82089
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: M Ashhurst SC / C Mobellan (Plaintiff) F Corsaro SC (First to Third Defendants/First and Second Cross-Claimants) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff) Norton Rose Fulbright (First to...
Orders
Grant leave to plaintiff to amend list statement; plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment; costs of motion be costs in the cause
The Owners Corporation sought damages against the developer for building defects. The tribunal dismissed parts of the developer's motion but struck out certain allegations in the Owners Corporation's statement, with leave to replead. An amendment was ordered to correct an error in the response.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — application for summary dismissal or strike out of pleadings — leave sought to withdraw alleged admissions in list response — where alleged admissions arise in part from obvious error in list response — court’s power to make amendment to facilitate just, quick and cheap...
Before
McGrath J
Hearing
18 July 2024
File Numbers
2018/00190513
Matched Strata Plans
SP82089
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: C Mobellan (Plaintiff) F Corsaro SC (Defendants/Cross-Claimants) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff) Norton Rose Fulbright (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)
Orders
(1) Amendment of pleadings made of court’s own motion to correct an obvious error. (2) Strike-out application upheld for identified paragraphs with leave to the plaintiff to replead. (3) Application for summary dismissal and balance of notice of motion dismissed.
Rabah Enterprises Pty Ltd sought a stay of orders made against it and a writ for levy of property. The court granted the stay but imposed conditions to protect the value of Rabah's assets. The costs of the motion are to be costs in the appeal.
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – appeal – application for stay pending hearing of appeal – appellant owned 18 lots in strata plan subject to mortgage to bank – appeal reasonably arguable – appeal likely to be heard and determined in four months – attempts to sell lots likely to trigger default on...
Before
Basten AJA
Hearing
28 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/203814
Matched Strata Plans
SP93010
Parties
Third Party v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: C Ward SC / M Youssef (Appellant) D Krochmalik (Respondent) Solicitors: Bartier Perry (Appellant) Stacks Law Firm (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Until the 28th day after the entry of orders disposing of the appeal, stay: (a) order 1 made by Rees J on 2 June 2023 as varied on 28 June 2023; (b) order 3 made by Rees J (with respect to the costs of the trial) on 2 June 2023 as varied on 28 July 2023; and (c) the writ for the levy of property issued on 22 June 2023. (2) Order 1 will remain in operation subject to compliance by the appellant with the following conditions: (a) the appellant shall not sell, dispose of, transfer, deal...
A lot owner sought compensation from the owners corporation for lost rental income due to the corporation's failure to maintain common property, leading to water damage in her lot. The tribunal found in favor of the applicant and ordered the owners corporation to pay the requested compensation. The decision was made because the owners corporation breached its duty of care.
LAND LAW – Strata title – common property – maintenance of common property – breach – damages
Before
P French, Senior Member
Hearing
12 July 2022
File Numbers
SC 22/06759
Matched Strata Plans
SP92448
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Applicant (self-represented) T Peeka, Strata Manager (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The Owners – Strata Plan No. 92448 must pay Matilda Chang $12,531.43 immediately.
Google Reviews
06 Feb 2026
“This real estate agency operates in bad faith and appears to rely on questionable tactics to withhold tenants’ bonds.
If you’re moving into a property managed by them, protect yourself immediately:
👉 Take detailed photos and videos of everything on day one (walls, floors, appliances, bathrooms,...”
04 Dec 2025
“I just want to express my deepest gratitude to Rob from Strathfield Partners for making the entire experience of purchasing my new home so easy. Rob truly went above and beyond to make everything happen for me. I was very overwhelmed, as this is such a huge step for me, but Rob made the whole...”
03 Nov 2025
“I had my email completely ignored by Anu, and when I spoke to Philip in person, he actually told me he “did not have the patience for me.” All I did was politely ask why I wasn’t informed about the work happening outside my hallway this week, as I work night shifts and was hoping it could be...”
11 Nov 2025
“It was an absolute pleasure having Fabian Pignataro and the Strathfield Partners team as our property managers.
Professional, on point and caring.
Fabian’s meticulous nature and attention to detail were beyond words.
Thankyou for the last two years. 🙏”
29 Oct 2025
“Horrendous. I am genuinely shocked with how appallingly this business dealt with my property. The property manager did NOTHING, making decisions without consulting me, and generally being a weasel. DO NOT GO HERE FOR REAL-ESTATE”