Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 5,537 (91%)
Commercial 172 (3%)
Utility 368 (6%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 17.5 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 1963, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epping 2121 | 23 | 418 | 7% | 7.8% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 16 | 722 | 5% | 7.0% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 14 | 194 | 4% | 3.3% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 14 | 198 | 4% | 4.8% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 9 | 118 | 3% | 2.2% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 8 | 255 | 2% | 5.1% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 8 | 136 | 2% | 3.9% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 7 | 363 | 2% | 4.7% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 7 | 188 | 2% | 5.3% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 7 | 94 | 2% | 1.3% |
| Lakemba 2195 | 7 | 90 | 2% | 1.9% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 6 | 101 | 2% | 3.2% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 6 | 77 | 2% | 2.1% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 5 | 216 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 5 | 61 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 5 | 79 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 5 | 70 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 5 | 59 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Werrington 2747 | 5 | 62 | 1% | 4.7% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 4 | 91 | 1% | 5.4% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 4 | 58 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 4 | 53 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 4 | 59 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 4 | 66 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 4 | 57 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Revesby 2212 | 4 | 23 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 4 | 26 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 3 | 96 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 3 | 74 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 3 | 67 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 3 | 46 | 1% | 5.1% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 3 | 38 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 3 | 51 | 1% | 7.5% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 3 | 27 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 3 | 26 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Condell Park 2200 | 3 | 15 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 3 | 16 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 3 | 12 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Wolli Creek 2205 | 2 | 83 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 2 | 78 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Northmead 2152 | 2 | 38 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Killara 2071 | 2 | 34 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 2 | 31 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 2 | 36 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Kingsgrove 2208 | 2 | 28 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Toongabbie 2146 | 2 | 34 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Artarmon 2064 | 2 | 29 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Sefton 2162 | 2 | 19 | 1% | 7.4% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 2 | 31 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 2 | 27 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 2 | 27 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 2 | 19 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Bardwell Valley 2207 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 7.4% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 2 | 23 | 1% | 3.3% | |
| Quakers Hill 2763 | 2 | 19 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 2 | 16 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 2 | 13 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Roselands 2196 | 2 | 13 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 2 | 13 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Denistone East 2112 | 2 | 11 | 1% | 4.2% | |
| Richmond 2753 | 2 | 14 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Putney 2112 | 2 | 8 | 1% | 6.1% | |
| Yagoona 2199 | 2 | 4 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Dover Heights 2030 | 1 | 100 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 51 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Holroyd 2142 | 1 | 42 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 41 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Mays Hill 2145 | 1 | 37 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Oatlands 2117 | 1 | 29 | 0% | 2.1% | |
| Forestville 2087 | 1 | 28 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| East Hills 2213 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 1 | 24 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| South Hurstville 2221 | 1 | 23 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Regents Park 2143 | 1 | 21 | 0% | 2.1% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Pendle Hill 2145 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Killarney Heights 2087 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Villawood 2163 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 4.3% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Concord West 2138 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Cabramatta 2166 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Oxley Park 2760 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Wareemba 2046 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Bardwell Park 2207 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Redfern 2016 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Mount Pritchard 2170 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Girraween 2145 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Rooty Hill 2766 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Balgowlah 2093 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Queenscliff 2096 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Holsworthy 2173 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| East Ryde 2113 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Hurlstone Park 2193 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Pennant Hills 2120 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| West Pennant Hills 2125 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Kiama 2533 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Collaroy 2097 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Wahroonga 2076 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.9% |
Tribunal & Court History
6
Total Cases
5
NCAT
0.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.7
Total per 100 Schemes
6 cases since 2021. None resulted in adverse findings — all were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or brought by the owners corporation.
Orders Made 1
Dismissed 5
Building defects 1
Promina Design & Construction Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 97449 (No 4) [2023] NSWCATAP 338
The Owners Corporation appealed a decision to transfer proceedings to the District Court, and the Owners Corporation sought costs. The tribunal dismissed the application for costs, finding that Rule 38 did not apply and no special circumstances existed to warrant a cost order.
COSTS – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules rr 38 and 38A – Amount claimed or in dispute – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 60 – Special circumstances
Before
D Robertson, Senior Member E Bishop SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00116958
Matched Strata Plans
SP97449
Parties
Developer v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: T Smartt (Appellant) Solicitors: Centurion Lawyers (Appellant) Khoury Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. A hearing with respect to the question of costs is dispensed with pursuant to section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 2. The respondent’s application for the costs of the appeal is dismissed.
An apartment owner appealed a tribunal decision awarding costs against him, related to a prior Supreme Court case. The appeal was dismissed because the appeal panel found no legal errors or other grounds to overturn the original decision. The appeal panel also decided each party would bear their own costs for the appeal.
APPEAL – Strata Law – appeal against costs order and order dispensing with a hearing – discretionary decisions - no appealable error found.
Before
S Thode, Principal Member P Durack, Senior Member
Hearing
27 July 2023
File Numbers
2023/00172412
Matched Strata Plans
SP2245
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Self-represented (Appellant) Strata Title Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1 Leave to appeal refused. 2 Appeal dismissed. 3 No order as to costs with the intention that each party pay its own costs of the appeal.
An owners corporation sought an order for building defects against the builder. The tribunal decided to transfer the case to the District Court due to the likely claim exceeding the monetary limit of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeal against the transfer was dismissed.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s 48K — Jurisdiction of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal — Claim for breach of statutory warranty — Section 48K(3) does not limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of claims for breach of statutory warranty — Civil and...
Before
D Robertson, Senior Member E Bishop SC, Senior Member
Hearing
30 May 2023
File Numbers
2023/00116958
Matched Strata Plans
SP97449
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: T Smartt (Appellant) B Anderson (Respondent) Solicitors: Centurion Lawyers (Appellant) Khoury Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. Grant the appellant leave to appeal. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. Either party may, within 14 days of the date of publication of these reasons, file and serve submissions, not exceeding five pages, and any evidence relied upon in support, seeking an order in relation to the costs of the appeal. 4. If either party files submissions pursuant to order (3), the other party may file and serve submissions not exceeding five pages in response to any such submissions, and any evidence relied...
The applicant sought a stay of an order, which was dismissed. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the respondent's application for costs related to the stay application. The Tribunal reasoned that there were no special circumstances warranting the awarding of costs.
COSTS – failed application for a stay of order transferring proceedings from Tribunal to a Court – Appeal Panel not satisfied order capable of being meaningfully stayed – whether r 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) engaged or whether special circumstances warranting...
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00116958
Matched Strata Plans
SP97449
Parties
Third Party v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: T Smartt (Appellant) Solicitors: Centurion Lawyers (Appellant) Khoury Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing of the respondent’s application for costs of the application for a stay is dispensed with. (2) The respondent’s application for costs of the application for a stay is dismissed.
A builder sought a stay on a transfer order that sent a building dispute to the District Court. The tribunal determined it lacked the power to meaningfully grant a stay, so the application was dismissed.
APPEAL – application for a stay – whether order transferring proceedings from Tribunal to a Court capable of being stayed by Appeal Panel of the Tribunal – whether order transferring proceedings had already been given effect to or has future effect
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member
Hearing
26 April 2023
File Numbers
2023/00116958
Matched Strata Plans
SP97449
Parties
Developer v Developer
Representation
Counsel: T Smartt (Appellant) Solicitors: Centurion Lawyers (Appellant) Khoury Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The application for a stay is dismissed. (2) Should the respondent seek an outcome other than there being no order made as to costs, then it is to lodge submissions and evidence in support of its costs application with the Appeal Registry and give them to the appellant within 14 days of the publication of these orders. (3) Any submissions and evidence in response to the costs application are to be lodged with the Appeal Registry and given to the respondent within 14 days thereafter. (4)...
An owners corporation sought the removal of a tree on a lot owner's property, claiming it was damaging a common property garage wall. The tribunal agreed the tree was causing damage and likely to cause more, so ordered its removal. However, it also determined the owners corporation should pay for the removal and replacement trees to compensate the lot owner.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to property – apprehension of additional damage to property
Before
Douglas AC
Hearing
11 March 2021
File Numbers
2020/263339
Matched Strata Plans
SP1868
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
M Ottignon (Agent) (Applicant) L Morgan (Litigant in person) (Respondent)
Orders
The orders of the Court are: (1) The application is granted. (2) The applicant shall, at its expense, employ AQF level 3 qualified arborists, who carry all appropriate insurances, to remove the Schefflera and the Phoenix palm to near ground level, and poison their stumps with Glyphosate, immediately after cutting the trees to near ground level. All refuse shall be removed, and the site thoroughly tidied. The applicant shall carry liability for any damage to the respondent’s property that may...