Two very different NSW property decisions can turn on the same mistake: trusting a document to tell you more than it is legally required to.
A first home buyer eyeing a strata apartment at auction might be handed a certificate that looks comprehensive, listing levies, funds and contributions, and assume it covers building defects and any looming special levy too. It doesn't, not by law. A construction company director who signs a personal guarantee to keep a project funded might assume that if the business runs into trouble, the lender's recourse stops at the company. It doesn't either, not if the guarantee is secured against something personal, like the family home.
Both situations share a lesson worth acting on early: the standard paperwork tells you what it is legally required to tell you, not everything that actually matters to your decision. What follows looks at both, using the rules that govern a strata certificate and a real, recent NSW Supreme Court judgment on what a personal guarantee can cost.
Under section 184 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), an owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee of a lot, or someone they authorise, can ask the owners corporation for a strata information certificate, commonly known as a section 184 certificate. The owners corporation must give it within 14 days of receiving a written request and the prescribed fee.
The certificate has to state a defined list of financial and management information: the regular periodic contributions determined for the lot and when they are payable, whether any contributions are unpaid and by how much, interest payable on anything overdue, amounts recoverable from the owner for work the owners corporation has carried out, the funding proposals set out in the scheme's 10-year capital works fund plan, and the names of the strata committee, managing agent and building manager. It also has to state whether a strata renewal committee has been established for the scheme under the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, which matters because a renewal process can ultimately lead to a compulsory collective sale or redevelopment of the scheme, and whether the scheme includes an exclusive supply network (sometimes called an embedded network, commonly for electricity) and, if so, what services that network covers. If the scheme forms part of a community or precinct scheme, extra financial information about that layer is included too.
What it does not have to state is just as important. Section 184 does not require disclosure of known building defects, current or threatened legal proceedings, insurance history or by-law disputes. And if a special levy has only been discussed or flagged by the strata committee, rather than formally determined by resolution of the owners corporation, it will not appear on the certificate as an unpaid or determined contribution at all. The certificate reports what has been struck, not what is being talked about.
A separate provision, section 182, allows a broader set of documents to be inspected on request, including the owners corporation's last financial statements, every current insurance policy, the 10-year capital works fund plan and any other record in its custody. But the right to request that inspection is just as narrow as the right to request the certificate itself: it belongs to the owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee of the lot, or someone they authorise, not to a prospective buyer in their own right. In practice, that means a buyer depends entirely on the vendor's cooperation, through the contract for sale or an authority to inspect given before exchange, to see any of this before bidding.
There is also a reason to make sure a certificate is current, not just present. Under section 185, a strata information certificate is conclusive evidence, as at its date, of the matters it states, in favour of anyone taking an interest in the lot for value, whether or not they were the one who requested it. That cuts both ways: an accurate certificate protects a buyer from an owners corporation later chasing them for an amount the certificate said wasn't owing, but the protection only runs as at the certificate's date, so a levy struck the day after it was issued isn't covered. A certificate obtained weeks before auction day is weaker protection than one obtained close to it, which is a further reason to treat both the certificate and any record inspection as a job for shortly before bidding, not earlier in a long campaign.
There is also a timing problem specific to buying at auction. A cooling-off period does not apply to a contract for the sale of residential property sold by public auction, or to a contract made on the same day the property was passed in at auction, under section 66T of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). Once the hammer falls, or once a passed-in property is contracted that same day, the contract is binding, with no five or ten business day window to change your mind. That makes the section 184 certificate, and any record inspection, something to arrange and read before you bid, not after. It is standard conveyancing practice for a vendor to include a current strata certificate in the contract for sale, but a buyer doing their own checks before auction should confirm that has actually happened rather than assume it, given the request is not something they can make directly.
If a vendor or agent mentions "a couple of issues" behind an upcoming special levy, treat that as a prompt to ask specifically whether the levy has been formally determined yet, and to request an authority to inspect recent AGM and committee minutes before auction day, rather than relying on a verbal assurance.
Bidding on a strata property soon?
If a vendor has flagged an upcoming special levy, or you're not sure what a section 184 certificate does and doesn't cover, get it checked before auction day, not after. Contact Archer Lawyers for practical, timely advice.
Free consultationDue diligence isn't only for buyers. It matters just as much for anyone asked to personally guarantee or mortgage their own property to support a construction company's finance, including a director putting up the family home.
In Blackbird First Mortgage Corporation Pty Ltd v Cam Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 995, the NSW Supreme Court entered judgment for a private first-mortgage lender against a construction company and three further defendants, including two individuals and an associated investment company, in the amount of $84,070.99. The Court also ordered one of the individual defendants to give up possession of the mortgaged property and granted the lender leave to issue a writ of possession. That property, the judgment records, was the home the defendant and his wife had lived in for almost 18 years.
The defendant sought a short stay of the possession order to attempt a refinance. Applying the principles in GE Personal Finance Pty Ltd v Smith [2006] NSWSC 889, the Court noted that a stay for refinancing is ordinarily supported by evidence of concrete steps actually taken, not just an intention, and found the evidence in this case "reasonably scant." The stay granted was brief, running only to 4pm on 4 September 2026, enough time to arrange to move, not to complete a refinance.
Two things stand out for anyone in a construction business considering, or already carrying, a personal guarantee or a mortgage over their own home to support company finance. First, the amount ultimately enforced was, in the judgment's own words, "relatively small." A modest residual debt does not mean modest consequences if it is secured against your home rather than resting on the company's assets alone. Second, once proceedings reach the possession stage, courts need to see real evidence of refinancing progress before granting even a brief stay. General financial pressure or industry conditions is a company risk. A personal guarantee, once secured, turns it into a personal one, and the two are not the same exposure at all.
These are among the state's most established areas for strata living, with a large stock of older buildings well into their capital works cycles. The 10-year capital works fund plan disclosed under section 184 and section 182 is worth particular attention here: a scheme approaching a major roof, facade or lift replacement can show a modest current balance while carrying a much larger funding proposal on paper. See our Eastern Suburbs and North Shore location pages for more on the issues we see locally.
Significant recent unit and townhouse development across growth areas including the Wilton Junction corridor means many schemes here are newer and still within the statutory warranty period for building defects, a period a section 184 certificate does not address at all. Buyers should treat the certificate as one part of the picture, alongside a genuine defects check. See our Campbelltown location page.
The Blackbird judgment concerned a Lake Macquarie property, within the Hunter region our Newcastle location serves. Private first-mortgage lending secured against a family home is not confined to metropolitan Sydney, and the limits the judgment placed on a short stay apply just as much to construction businesses and their directors here. See our Newcastle location page.
Continuing medium-density development in and around Wollongong means more buyers here are encountering strata schemes for the first time. The section 184 and section 182 process, and its limits, apply exactly as described above wherever the scheme is located in NSW. See our Wollongong location page.
Strata schemes and personally guaranteed construction finance both exist well beyond Sydney and the coast, and neither the certificate and inspection requirements under the Strata Schemes Management Act nor the principles applied to guarantees and mortgagee possession vary by location within NSW.
Whether you're weighing up a strata purchase or being asked to personally guarantee finance for a construction business, the time to get advice is before you sign or bid, not after. Archer Lawyers advises buyers, owners corporations, and builders and directors across NSW on exactly these decisions. Contact us to talk through your situation.
A section 184 certificate, formally a strata information certificate, is a document an owners corporation must give under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) setting out a lot's contributions, unpaid levies, capital works fund plan and management details. It must be provided within 14 days of a written request and the prescribed fee.
Generally, no. Only the current owner, a mortgagee or a covenant chargee of the lot, or someone they authorise, can request a section 184 certificate or a section 182 record inspection. A prospective buyer usually depends on the vendor obtaining one, or authorising an inspection, before auction or exchange.
Only if the levy has already been formally determined by resolution of the owners corporation. A special levy that has only been discussed or flagged informally, without a resolution, may not appear on the certificate as an unpaid or determined amount, even if committee members already expect it.
No. Under section 66T of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), the standard residential cooling-off period does not apply to a property sold by public auction, or to a contract made the same day after the property was passed in. The contract is binding once the hammer falls.
If the guarantee is unsecured, a lender's recourse is generally against your personal assets through a judgment debt. If it is secured by a mortgage over property you own, including your home, the lender can seek possession of that specific property directly if the company defaults and the guarantee is called on.
Yes, if the director has granted a mortgage over the home to secure the company's finance, personally or through a related entity. A recent NSW Supreme Court judgment confirms courts will order possession even where the residual debt is relatively modest, once the security has been properly enforced.
Courts can grant a short stay, but generally expect real evidence of concrete refinancing steps already taken, not just an intention to refinance. A brief stay may still be granted to allow for relocation, even where the refinancing evidence itself is limited.
