Supavest has been wound up. Its own property FAQ had already answered what would happen.

Supavest Pty Ltd, the company behind Retire On Bricks and SAFE Property, was wound up by the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 8 September.

Before that happened, a live TIC Property page had already posed the exact question investors now face:

What happens to my property investment if Supavest liquidates?

Its answer is reassuring. It says an investor's share remains secure because their name is registered on the property title as a tenant in common, independently of Supavest's operations.

Now the hypothetical has happened.

But being on title answers only one part of the problem.

It does not necessarily tell an investor which Supavest company they contracted with, who owns the remaining share of the property, who received money before settlement, who is responsible for construction or management, or which company promised things such as vacancy cover or a right of first refusal.

And public records show why those distinctions matter.

At least one property currently being marketed through the fractional-property model was recorded at the planning stage as owned not by Supavest Pty Ltd, but by a separate company:

Supavest SPV Three Pty Ltd.

For someone who has put money into one of these properties, the useful question is therefore not simply:

"Did I invest with Supavest?"

It is:

What company is named in my contract, who is on the title today, and which company still owes me any other obligations?

Put money into a Supavest-linked property?

Your position may depend on the property, the company named in your documents and whether you paid an EOI, exchanged, settled or were registered on title.

Tell The Open Register which stage you reached and what you are still waiting for. We'll send you the public company and liquidation record free. If you choose, we may also connect you with an independent professional who can assess the contract or title information we cannot.

Supavest Pty Ltd, ACN 661 554 785, holds nine registered business names, including S.A.F.E. Property, Supavest NDIS, Supavest Capital, Supavest Property and Supavest Brokerage.

Until April 2023, the company itself was legally named 1CP Capital Pty Ltd.

That former name is still visible today. The TIC Property website presents itself as "TIC Property by 1CP Capital" and carries the FAQ explaining what happens if Supavest liquidates.

The Open Register has not located TIC Property terms or a privacy policy that independently identifies its current operating legal entity, so this article does not say TIC Property itself is operated by Supavest Pty Ltd. The historical connection is nevertheless significant.

Retire On Bricks is much more direct. Its privacy policy and disclaimer identify it as "an initiative of Supavest Pty Ltd (ABN 90 661 554 785)." Its material describes a fractional-property model in which investors buy interests as tenants in common under a contract of sale. The live website currently says 43 properties have settled, advertises entry from about $75,000, and describes a structure in which Supavest holds a 65% interest while as many as seven investors hold 5% shares.

Supavest's SAFE Property material describes essentially the same model. It says Supavest holds 65%, investors can take 5% shares, a $2,500 expression-of-interest payment precedes contracts, rental income is paid monthly, and Supavest receives a first right of refusal if an investor wants to sell.

That is why the answer cannot stop at "I'm on title, so I'm safe." A registered property interest is one thing. Who owes you money, who must complete the build, who manages the property, who receives the rent, who promised vacancy cover and who owns the remaining interest are separate questions.

Supavest's share of each SAFE / TIC property. Source: Supavest SAFE Property FAQ, Retire On Bricks.

A public planning record for 8 Madigan Street, Renmark, South Australia identifies the owner at the time of the application as Supavest SPV Three Pty Ltd, ACN 671 776 515. Not Supavest Pty Ltd.

The application concerned supported accommodation at that address. The same address is now being marketed as a fractional tenants-in-common property divided into seven 5% investor shares.

That does not tell us who owns the property today. The planning record establishes ownership at the time of that application. The Open Register has not obtained a current South Australian title search, so this article does not say whether Supavest SPV Three still owns the property, whether another Supavest company owns part of it, or whether investors are currently registered on title.

What the record does establish is important: a property marketed through the wider Supavest model can involve a different legal company from Supavest Pty Ltd. So an investor cannot safely resolve their position from the Supavest brand alone.

Supavest Pty Ltd sits alongside a wider cluster of similarly named companies, including Supavest SPV Two Pty Ltd, Supavest SPV Three Pty Ltd, Supavest SPV Four Pty Ltd, Supavest SPV Five Pty Ltd, Supavest SPV Six Pty Ltd, Supavest Digital Pty Ltd and Supavest Legal Pty Ltd.

They are separate legal entities. Supavest Pty Ltd being wound up does not by itself establish that any of those companies is insolvent or forms part of the same liquidation.

Some do, however, have their own court history. Supavest SPV Five Pty Ltd faced a winding-up application published by ASIC on 30 June 2026. The public material reviewed for this article does not establish that the application resulted in a winding-up order.

Supavest SPV Three also appeared in a Supreme Court of New South Wales Corporations List motion earlier in 2026. The available court listing does not identify the relief sought, so The Open Register does not characterise that matter as a winding-up application.

Those records do not establish that the wider SPV group is insolvent. They reinforce a narrower point: you need to identify the exact company attached to your own property.

Retire On Bricks also uses regulatory language prominently in its marketing. Its website tells prospective investors "ATO ruling in place" and "Reviewed by ASIC."

Its own disclaimer adds an important qualification. It says references to taxation rulings or regulatory reviews, including SMSFR 2012/1, describe the history and treatment of the product structure but "are not an endorsement of the product by any regulator and not a guarantee of performance."

The ATO document itself is Self Managed Superannuation Funds Ruling SMSFR 2012/1. It is a general 2012 ruling dealing with limited-recourse borrowing arrangements for self-managed super funds. It does not name Supavest, Retire On Bricks, SAFE Property or TIC Property.

Retire On Bricks also says ASIC reviewed the tenants-in-common structure in late 2025. The Open Register has not located a public ASIC decision, notice or other ASIC document independently recording that review. That does not establish the company's statement is false. It means that, from the public sources reviewed, the account of that ASIC review currently comes from the business itself.

There is a major difference between someone who paid an EOI and someone whose name is already registered on a settled property title.

If you dealt with Supavest, Retire On Bricks, SAFE Property or TIC Property, get your documents together and establish:

Your position can be very different depending on where the transaction reached. If you only paid an EOI, the immediate question may be who received the money and what your agreement says about getting it back. If you exchanged but have not settled, the contract and deposit arrangements become central. If you settled and are already on title, your ownership interest may be straightforward to identify, while separate management or contractual obligations remain. If the property is still being built, being on title does not by itself tell you who is responsible for completing construction. If it is already tenanted, you may also need to establish who manages it and who currently handles the rent.

No public liquidator's report has been obtained. The public record reviewed here therefore does not yet establish:

It also does not establish wrongdoing by any person or company. And it does not establish that every person who bought a fractional property through the Supavest network is in the same position.

That distinction is important. There may not be one "Supavest investor" position. There may be many, depending on the property, company, contract, money already paid and whether settlement occurred.

Supavest's property marketing had already told investors what would happen if Supavest liquidated. Now it has.

The FAQ gives a simple answer: your registered share of the property remains yours.

The public record shows why an affected investor may need to go one step further.

Which company did you actually contract with? Are you actually on title yet? Who owns the rest of the property? And which company owes you anything beyond the ownership interest itself?

Those answers will not come from the Supavest brand. They come from the contract and the current title.

The brand tells you who sold the story. The contract and title tell you what you actually have.

Has the Supavest liquidation left something unresolved?

Tell us if you:

We'll identify the relevant public company record and insolvency process. You decide whether your details can be shared with an independent provider.

The Open Register publishes and organises public-record information. This article is not financial, legal or tax advice and does not tell anyone whether to buy, sell, hold or bring a claim.

7 August 2026 — Staff Domain Pty Ltd filed a winding-up application against Supavest Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, proceeding 2026/00326397.

21 August 2026 — ASIC published the winding-up application.

8 September 2026 — The Supreme Court made the winding-up order. Shabnam Amirbeaggi was appointed liquidator.

14 September 2026 — ASIC published the winding-up order and liquidator appointment.

Separately, Supavest SPV Five Pty Ltd faced a winding-up application published by ASIC on 30 June 2026. The public record reviewed here does not establish the outcome of that application.

A Renmark property marketed under the Supavest brand was recorded as owned by a separate company. Source: ASIC published notices, council planning record.

ASIC notice: Supavest Pty Ltd winding-up application · ASIC notice: winding-up order and liquidator appointment · TIC Property · Retire On Bricks · SAFE Property · Australian Business Register records for Supavest Pty Ltd and the relevant Supavest SPVs · Australian Taxation Office, SMSFR 2012/1 · Riverland Regional Assessment Panel / Renmark Paringa Council planning record for 8 Madigan Street, Renmark.

A current title search for 8 Madigan Street and the liquidator's first report to creditors had not been obtained at publication.