Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 839 (96%)
Commercial 12 (1%)
Utility 18 (2%)
Other 4 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 12.3 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 1964, newest 2020.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marrickville 2204 | 5 | 40 | 7% | 1.5% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 5 | 19 | 7% | 0.8% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 3 | 42 | 4% | 3.3% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 2 | 50 | 3% | 1.6% | |
| Enmore 2042 | 2 | 44 | 3% | 6.5% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 2 | 72 | 3% | 0.5% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 2 | 29 | 3% | 1.1% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 2 | 22 | 3% | 1.7% | |
| Stanmore 2048 | 2 | 25 | 3% | 1.1% | |
| Wareemba 2046 | 2 | 24 | 3% | 6.7% |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 2 | 24 | 3% | 2.7% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 2 | 22 | 3% | 1.1% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 2 | 20 | 3% | 0.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 2 | 12 | 3% | 0.2% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 2 | 13 | 3% | 0.3% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 1 | 43 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 1 | 40 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 1 | 35 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 1 | 19 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 19 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Ingleburn 2565 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Chiswick 2046 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Annandale 2038 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Fairfield West 2165 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 8.3% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 11 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Bundeena 2230 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 16.7% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| South Coogee 2034 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Russell Lea 2046 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Taren Point 2229 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 0.8% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Total Cases
3
NCAT
1
Supreme Court
1.4
Adverse per 100 Schemes
5.6
Total per 100 Schemes
1
Compulsory Manager Appts
4 cases since 2021. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders including a compulsory manager appointment. The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 3
Dismissed 1
A lot owner appealed a decision from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The court refused to grant leave to appeal the original decision regarding costs and dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal did not raise any matters of principle. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – NCAT Appeal – Leave to appeal – Whether the Appeal Panel erred in joining parties – Whether there was an injustice going beyond what was reasonably arguable – Whether there is an issue of principle or a question of public importance – Appeal dismissed
Before
Harrison AsJ
Hearing
8 March 2022
File Numbers
2021/237102
Matched Strata Plans
SP1813
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: S. Philips (Plaintiff) G. Sirtes SC (First, Second and Third Defendants) Solicitors: Terret Lawyers (Plaintiff) Madison Marcus (First, second and Third Defendants)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal pursuant to s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is refused. (2) The amended summons filed 26 October 2021 is dismissed. (3) The stay orders made on 8 July 2022 in this Court are dissolved. (4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs.
The Owners Corporation sought orders for unpaid special levies, which the respondent, a lot owner, contested. The Tribunal found in favor of the Owners Corporation, ordering the respondent to pay the outstanding levies with interest and the Owners Corporation's costs.
LAND LAW – Strata schemes – Recovery of unpaid contributions and interest
Before
Kevin Andronos SC, Senior Member
Hearing
28 April 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/50064 SC 21/51320 SC 22/03898
Matched Strata Plans
SP1813
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Solicitors: Madison Marcus Law Firm (Applicant) Terrett Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
Pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, reasons published are amended to read as follows: In matter SC 22/03898 (1) Pursuant to s. 86(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (the SSMA), the Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $18,000.00. (2) Pursuant to ss. 86(1) and 85(1) of the SSMA the Respondent pay to the Applicant interest on the sum outstanding under order 1 at the rate of 10% per annum from 16 September 2021 to the date of payment. (3)...
The applicant sought to appeal the previous tribunal decision concerning the appointment of a compulsory strata manager and the special levy. The Tribunal determined that the previous orders regarding the strata manager appointment and the special levy be set aside. The Tribunal also determined that the claims be redetermined by a differently constituted tribunal and that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the appeal.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The Tribunal had previously appointed a strata manager, but that appointment had ceased before the current decision.
APPEALS-orders consequential upon substantive decision-remittal of claims for redetermination-costs COSTS - -costs of the appeal follow the event-substantial success by the appellant LAND LAW - Strata title –orders consequential upon substantive decision-set aside appointment of compulsory...
Before
P Durack SC, Senior Member D Robertson, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers (in part) & Hearing on 22 July 2021
File Numbers
2020/00370815 (AP 20/23648)
Matched Strata Plans
SP1813
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: G Sirtes SC (Second & Third Appellant) S Phillips (First Respondent) Solicitors: Madison Marcus Law Firm (First, Second & Third Appellants) JP Gould Solicitors (First, Second & Third Respondents)
Orders
1. Vary orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal’s orders made in proceedings SC 19/28242 such that the appointment of Rollings and Tyrell Pty Ltd as strata managing agent under order 1 terminated on 28 May 2021. 2. Set aside order 1 in proceedings SC 19/28238 and order 1 in proceedings SC 19/28234 save to the extent that each order required payment of a levy referable to the repair work required to the common stairs in the sum of $80,000 by each of Lots 16 and 17 making payment in the amount of...
Lot owners appealed a tribunal decision about a special levy and the appointment of a strata manager. The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the previous orders, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different tribunal, including new evidence and arguments. The tribunal has yet to make the final orders, and seeks submissions from parties.
Compulsory manager appointed: Name not recorded
LAND LAW - Strata title - special levy - resolution for large amount in respect of common property works - whether special levy went beyond what required to carry out repair work required pursuant to s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act (SSMA) - whether resolution to impose special levy...
Before
P Durack SC, Senior Member D Robertson, Senior Member
Hearing
8 and 17 December 2020
File Numbers
2020/00370815 (AP 20/23648)
Matched Strata Plans
SP1813
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: G Sirtes SC and N Newton (Second & Third Appellants). S Philips (Respondents) Solicitors: Madison Marcus Law Firm (Appellants). JP Gould Solicitors (Respondents)
Orders
(1) To the extent required, leave to appeal is granted. (2) The appeal is allowed. (3) The orders made by the Tribunal on 14 July 2020 concerning costs are set aside. (4) Within 14 days after the date of publication of these reasons, the SPG appellants are to provide written submissions concerning the form of the remaining orders the Appeal Panel should make in disposing of this appeal, addressing the matters raised in paragraphs 273 to 278 of these reasons for decision, as well as...
Google Reviews
20 Aug 2025
“I highly recommend Think Strata. Good customer service, attentive and thorough attention to ensuring everything is operating as it should. This industry is full of shonks, Think Strata are good guys!”
06 Apr 2024
“After a spate of bad strata management companies in recent years, Think strata is like a breath of fresh air. Professional, efficient, reliable and friendly. Problems and issues arising are quickly, easily and immediately dealt with. So happy to find a company working with you for the best...”
12 Sep 2024
“Shane and his team at think strata have great industry & strata knowledge as well as very good response time and communication skills… Overall a strong strata agency to rival the big ones… highly recommend them !”
22 Feb 2021
“Shane and his team are always very professional, communicative and efficient. Shane has done an excellent job, responding to requests in a timely matter and resolved or is in the process of resolving issues as they arise. Garage door, plumbing, signage, letterbox light, marking out parking...”
05 Apr 2024
“Think Strata are great strata managers - they respond to all requests for services in our building quickly and provide helpful advice. Highly recommend to anyone looking for a reliable and responsive strata manager”