Drastically Reduce Energy Costs by up to 77% with Energy Efficient Windows

Windows are more than just interesting elements of a building. Not only do they filter light into a building and offer views, but they can also significantly help with the energy efficiency of a building.

Windows can be a major source of unwanted heat gain in summer and significant heat loss in Winter. An average building has 87% heat gain and 49% heat loss through its window.

You can prevent up to 77% heat transfer and drastically reduce your footprint and energy costs with the right energy-efficient windows.


How do energy-efficient windows work?

In almost any home or business building, glass type and treatment are the most crucial elements of energy efficiency. Your glass can also improve sound control, and relative greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many different types of glass and frames to choose from. Selecting the right one is critical to improving energy efficiency, controlling noise, maintenance, and security of a building.

Under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), manufacturers are required to supply windows that meet mandatory minimum specifications for structural adequacy and water penetration resistance under Australian Standard AS2047: Windows in buildings, selection, and installation.

At Express Glass, our expert team can assist in finding the right glazing solution, while improving the comfort of your interior environment for your home or business. That’s how we ensure that we take the right steps to prevent up to 77 percent heat transfer whilst conserving energy.

Unfortunately, non-conforming, inferior, and shoddy building glass products have been flooding into the Australian market. Dangerous, ‘spontaneous breakage’ has recently been a large concern for building glass suppliers. An unsuspecting building manager may think they are getting a good deal, when in fact, the window can cost more in the long term through decreased efficiency.

Confirm that your glazier or building glass supplier is an AGWA accredited member. The Australian Glass and Window Association is the peak body representing state association members and individual companies covering glass manufacturers, processors, merchants, glaziers, and suppliers of supporting machinery, services, and materials.


Glazing Performance Audit and Remediation Program

Our highly-qualified, experienced, and accredited project managers and glaziers can determine the right energy efficiency and sound control advice for your building. Our experienced team will ensure every facet of your glass project is managed to the highest standards.

We service every town, far wide and in between, across Australia – from Sydney to Melbourne, Brisbane to the Gold Coast, Adelaide, and Perth.

Express Glass is proudly approved by all major insurers. If required, we’ll even look after your building glass insurance claim. We’re here to make the entire process seamless for you.

To learn more about energy-efficient windows or to book a free building glass audit with the Express Glass team now or call us on 1300 666 234 – Done!


Thank you to our subject expert Express Glass

Benefits of installing a fall arrest roof safety system

Installing a fall arrest roof safety system can provide numerous benefits, particularly for those who work at heights or frequently access rooftops for maintenance, construction, or other tasks.


Here are 9 key advantages of having a fall arrest roof safety system in place:
  • Preventing Fatalities and Injuries: The primary benefit of a fall arrest system is its ability to prevent serious injuries and fatalities resulting from falls. By arresting a fall mid-air or reducing the impact forces, the system helps protect workers from life-threatening accidents.
  • Compliance with Regulations: Most States have strict regulations and standards regarding workplace safety, especially when it comes to working at heights. Installing a fall arrest roof safety system ensures compliance with these regulations, reducing the risk of legal liabilities and penalties.
  • Improved Worker Confidence and Productivity: When workers feel safer on the job, their confidence and productivity tend to increase. Knowing that there’s a reliable fall protection system in place can help employees focus on their tasks without constant worry about potential falls.
  • Reduced Downtime and Costs: In case of an accident, there can be significant downtime for both the injured worker and the investigation process. Installing a fall arrest system helps minimize the likelihood of accidents, leading to reduced downtime and related costs.
  • Versatility and Accessibility: Fall arrest roof safety systems are designed to be versatile and can be adapted to various types of roofs and structures. They are available in different configurations, making them suitable for different industries and applications.
  • Ease of Use: Modern fall arrest systems are user-friendly and straightforward to use. Proper training ensures that workers can easily utilize the equipment, reducing the chance of misuse or errors.

“Long-term Investment: While the initial investment may seem significant, a fall arrest roof safety system is a long-term investment in worker safety. The system can provide years of reliable service, making it a cost-effective safety measure in the long run.”

  • Protection for Contractors and Visitors: If your facility or building has contractors or visitors accessing the roof, having a fall arrest system in place ensures their safety as well. It demonstrates a commitment to their well-being while on-site.
  • Positive Reputation: Prioritizing the safety of your employees and contractors can enhance your company’s reputation. Clients, partners, and employees are more likely to view your organization positively if safety is a top priority.
  • Flexibility in Work Procedures: With a fall arrest roof safety system, workers have more flexibility in how they carry out their tasks. They can move more freely on the roof while remaining secure, potentially increasing efficiency and reducing project timelines.

A fall arrest roof safety system is a crucial investment to protect workers, ensure compliance with safety regulations, and foster a positive and productive work environment. By reducing the risk of accidents and injuries, it contributes to the overall success and well-being of your organization.

Thank you to our subject expert AG Roof. Contact AGC for all your roofing needs.


Same Manager for Complex – Court Says No!

Same Strata Manager - Strata Management Statement Invalid

The NSW Court of Appeal has held that a clause in a Strata Management Statement (“SMS”) requiring subsidiary owners corporations as members of the building management committee to engage the same strata managing agent was inconsistent with the Strata Scheme Management Act 2015 (“SSMA”) and, subsequently, contrary to section 105(5) of the Strata Scheme Development Act 2015 (“SSDA”).

The effect is that any SMS with these types of clauses may no longer be valid to require the subsidiary schemes (usually strata schemes) to have the same strata manager.


The development is a “stratum development” or as we call them Building Management Committees (“BMC’s”), with a number of subsidiary schemes (mainly strata schemes) within it. Clauses within the SMS required that the entire development use one strata manager to manage not only the BMC but also every subsidiary scheme (strata scheme).

A lot owner, Walker Corporation Pty Ltd (original developer and lot owner) and the Respondents (being three strata schemes within the BMC) were in dispute following three strata schemes passing resolutions that terminated the appointment of the strata manager and appointed a different strata manager (not being the one managing the BMC).

The application to the Supreme Court said that the owners corporations of three strata schemes had breached clause 8.11 of the SMS in terminating the appointment of the strata manager and appointing someone else. The Applicant also contended that by this conduct, two of the strata schemes breached a provision of their respective by-laws, which were in similar terms to clause 8.11.  

Clause 8.11 of the SMS required the owners corporations as members to appoint and retain the same strata managing agent the BMC appointed as the managing agent.  

The issue then becomes whether clause 8.11 was valid.


The Supreme Court found that Clause 8.11 of the SMS was invalid due to its inconsistency with the SSMA and SSDA, and also that the by-laws for the strata schemes were also invalid.

The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application and found that the Judge at first instance was correct. The Court (in confirming the earlier decision) considered the following issues:


The Court found that the lot owners were charged with the responsibility of approving strata manager appointments (SSMA), and it was the primary responsibility of the owners corporation to manage the strata scheme with all of the obligations to exercise the functions and powers including the power of delegation, for the benefit of lot owners. The Court said:

“Clause 8.11 (SMS) extinguished the right of the owners corporation, in general meeting, to appoint a strata managing agent of its choosing, and to terminate that agent’s services if that was considered necessary.”

Further, clause 8.11 was inconsistent with the jurisdiction that section 72 of the SSMA which confers on NCAT Tribunal power to review the performance of strata managing agents. As a result of these inconsistencies clause 8.11 and the relevant strata by-laws were held to be invalid.


The Court also said that Clause 8.11 was invalid on the basis that it was not authorised by the provisions of the SSDA. The Court found that:

  • Section 99 of the SSDA describes a strata management statement as a “management statement for the building and its site”. This management function of the building and the site does not extend to the “complete takeover of management of all of the function[s] which may be delegated by an [owners corporation] to a strata managing agent” under the Management Act”.
  • The Court also found that clauses 4(1) and 4(2) in Schedule 4 to the SSDA do not support a strata management statement effectively prescribing the management arrangements for individual strata schemes forming part of the building.
  • As clause 8.11 of the SMS was inconsistent with the provisions of the SSMA, it was invalid by reason of section 105(5) of the SSDA.

Now all of this sounds very legalistic, but the net result is that where provisions of an SMS dictate that all subsidiary schemes must use the same strata manager, then based on this case, they are invalid.


  • Review your SMS to see if there is a clause requiring the same strata manager for the development.
  • If so, consider having it either deleted or at least reviewed for compliance. To do this will require amendments to the SMS and strata scheme by-laws.
  • Despite the SMS and by-laws being legally “invalid” in some cases, there may be no need to change the strata manager if they are providing adequate services, that is a matter for the owners corporation to consider. Depending on the appointment of the strata manager there may be the need to confirm their appointment at a future meeting.

Should you wish to discuss this decision further or obtain advice, please do not hesitate to contact us. Prepared by Ann Zheng and Colin Grace.

Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 61618 [2023] NSWCA 125.