Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 5,137 (90%)
Commercial 313 (6%)
Utility 7 (0%)
Other 221 (4%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 51.2 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 1966, newest 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newcastle 2300 | 8 | 214 | 7% | 4.9% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 5 | 558 | 5% | 1.0% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 5 | 712 | 5% | 3.8% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 5 | 119 | 5% | 0.5% | |
| Kirribilli 2061 | 4 | 72 | 4% | 2.1% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 3 | 276 | 3% | 0.6% | |
| The Hill 2300 | 3 | 156 | 3% | 2.8% | |
| Morisset 2264 | 3 | 58 | 3% | 4.2% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 2 | 484 | 2% | 2.2% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 2 | 494 | 2% | 1.5% |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 2 | 277 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Millers Point 2000 | 2 | 264 | 2% | 4.8% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 2 | 151 | 2% | 2.7% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 2 | 165 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Mayfield West 2304 | 2 | 92 | 2% | 3.8% | |
| Cabarita 2137 | 2 | 75 | 2% | 14.3% | |
| Islington 2296 | 2 | 47 | 2% | 6.9% | |
| Cronulla 2230 | 2 | 36 | 2% | 0.2% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 2 | 46 | 2% | 1.2% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 2 | 30 | 2% | 0.7% | |
| Waratah 2298 | 2 | 17 | 2% | 2.8% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 2 | 8 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Lorn 2320 | 2 | 4 | 2% | 16.7% | |
| Wickham 2293 | 1 | 126 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 123 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Belmont 2280 | 1 | 118 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 1 | 115 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| St Peters 2044 | 1 | 76 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 1 | 74 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 70 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 1 | 41 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 1 | 34 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Tea Gardens 2324 | 1 | 34 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 1 | 32 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Cardiff 2285 | 1 | 30 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 29 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 29 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 1 | 28 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Maitland 2320 | 1 | 24 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 1 | 23 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 22 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 1 | 22 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Newcastle East 2300 | 1 | 21 | 1% | 3.7% | |
| Toronto 2283 | 1 | 21 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Terrigal 2260 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Warners Bay 2282 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Petersham 2049 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Fletcher 2287 | 1 | 17 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Maryville 2293 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Kahibah 2290 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Merewether 2291 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Newcastle West 2302 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Beaconsfield 2015 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 5.3% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Speers Point 2284 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Mayfield East 2304 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Gymea Bay 2227 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Beresfield 2322 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Bar Beach 2300 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Mayfield 2304 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| East Maitland 2323 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.5% |
Tribunal & Court History
5
Total Cases
3
NCAT
2
Supreme Court
1.8
Adverse per 100 Schemes
4.5
Total per 100 Schemes
5 cases since 2021. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 4
Building defects 3
Insurance 1
An applicant lot owner sought an order against the respondent owners corporation to pay their costs. The tribunal found that the owners corporation should pay the applicant's costs from September 24, 2024, due to the respondent's conduct, specifically because the applicant had a strong case.
COSTS – proceedings not determined on the merits because of a compromise – whether special circumstances established – whether an insurance claim made by the owners corporation could support a deferral under s. 106(4) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
Before
M Tyson, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers (written submissions lodged 5 February, 21 February and 4 March 2025)
File Numbers
2024/00244552
Matched Strata Plans
SP91138
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Applicant) DEA Lawyers Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing of this costs application is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. (2) The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the period from 25 September 2024 to (and including) 20 December 2024, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed. (3) Otherwise, each party is bearing his or its own costs of the proceedings.
The applicant, the owners corporation, sought to set aside building work rectification orders issued by the respondent, a government department, regarding defects. The tribunal, while dismissing the proceedings, ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs due to a failure to issue notice and the ultimate resolution. The applicant, however, was not awarded costs for expert reports.
COSTS — Where plaintiff wishes to discontinue proceedings — Where proceedings discontinued by Plaintiff following agreement — Whether agreement was a compromise or an effective surrender by the defendant — Whether parties acted reasonably — Whether plaintiff’s case was “almost certain to have succeeded”
Before
Elkaim AJ
Hearing
14 March 2025
File Numbers
2023/294736
Matched Strata Plans
SP94197
Parties
Owners Corporation v Government
Representation
Counsel: Mr F Corsaro (Plaintiff) Mr I Lacy (First Defendant) Solicitors: Chambers Russell Lawyers (Plaintiff) Department of Customer Service NSW (First Defendant) Lionheart Lawyers Pty Ltd...
Orders
1. The proceedings are dismissed. 2. Subject to Order 3, the first defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. 3. The costs assessed under Order 2 above are not to include any costs claimed by the plaintiff in respect of the notice of motion filed on 19 February 2024 by the second defendant or in respect of the preparation of expert reports for these proceedings. 4. The second defendant is to pay its own costs of the proceedings.
The Owners Corporation sought a judicial review of the Registrar's decision not to accept their application in NCAT regarding building defects. The court found in favor of the Owners Corporation, ordering NCAT to accept the application for further determination, and also awarded costs to them.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review for denial of procedural fairness – review on the grounds of irrelevant and relevant considerations – remedies – discretionary factors – delay – plaintiff is the Owners Corporation of a multi-residential apartment building erected in suburban Sydney – the second...
Before
Slattery J
Hearing
14 October 2024
File Numbers
2024/196019
Matched Strata Plans
SP95221
Parties
Owners Corporation v Government
Representation
Counsel: Plaintiff: M Pesman SC; T Davie First Defendant: D Moujalli Third Defendant: S Baron Levi Solicitors: Plaintiff: Bannermans Lawyers First Defendant: McCulloch & Buggy Second Defendant:...
Orders
Relief granted under Supreme Court Act 1970, s 69. First defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
An apartment owner appealed a tribunal decision dismissing their claims against the developer and builder for alleged building defects. The appeal was successful because the higher tribunal found errors of law in the lower tribunal's reasoning. The case was sent back to a different tribunal for another hearing.
APPEAL - decision of Consumer and Commercial Division – purchase of a lot in a strata scheme upon which a dwelling was to be built – alleged breach of statutory warranties in s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) in respect of the dwelling as built – claims by purchaser against the developer...
Before
P Durack SC, Senior Member M Gracie, Senior Member
Hearing
14 November 2022
File Numbers
2022/00174988
Matched Strata Plans
SP92648
Parties
Lot Owner v Developer
Representation
Counsel: P Newton SC and M Hazan (Appellants) D P O’Connor (Respondents) Solicitors: Contracts Specialist (Appellants) Adams & Partners Lawyers (Respondents)
Orders
1. The appeal is allowed. 2. Order 2 of the orders made by the Tribunal on 2 June 2022 is set aside. 3. The claims the subject of Order 2 of the orders made by the Tribunal on 2 June 2022 are remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for redetermination, according to law. 4. The appellants’ costs of the appeal are to be paid by the respondents. 5. The costs order made by the Tribunal on 15 September 2022 is set aside. 6. The question as to what order for costs, if any, is to be made...
HOME BUILDING - whether costs order appropriate on consent transfer to Supreme Court - costs on appeal against primary costs order where a different order is made but not substantially that sought by appellant
Matched Strata Plans
SP92648
Google Reviews
26 Feb 2025
“I recently attended my first strata committee meeting with Wellman Strata Management and was thoroughly impressed with their professionalism and skill.
Their ability to conduct the meeting efficiently, while maintaining a courteous, friendly, calm and knowledgeable demeanour, was greatly...”
05 Mar 2025
“As the Chairman of our Owners Corporation I can happily vouch for Wellman Strata as strata managers. David's team has represented us for the past 7 years, since building completion, and we've always been satisfied with the level of service and professionalism displayed.
Wellman's knowledge and...”
11 Mar 2025
“I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for the outstanding work done by Wellman Strata Management in managing The Grand at 187 Kent St Sydney. Taking into account the the unique challenges that come with an aging property and a complex Community Management...”
03 Mar 2025
“Wellman Strata is the fifth strata company I have been involved with as an owners corporation representative over the last 30 years. I can say that their professionalism, advice and attention to detail is superior to the others.
I would not hesitate to recommend Wellman Strata to other Owners...”
21 Aug 2024
“I cant talk highly enough if Wellman Strata.
They have provided Strata services to our building for many years. They bring with them a wealth of knowledge for future projects and experience from other sites.
The communicate with any upcoming changes that we need to implement and ensuring that we...”