Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass [2022] NSWLEC 132

Sarah Malass committed wilful contempt of court by failing to comply with two court orders: ceasing unauthorised development and permitting access for inspection; her breaches were of moderate seriousness, persistent and not satisfactorily explained, warranting discrete fines for each contempt and an order for costs.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 November 2022
Procedural Posture: Sentence / Penalty Hearing After Guilty Plea in Civil Contempt Proceedings
Outcome: Sarah Malass found guilty of two counts of contempt; fined for each and ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics: ['civil Contempt' 'court Orders Enforcement' 'development Control' 'breach of Injunction' 'sentencing for Contempt' 'planning Law']

['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'local Government Law'] ['civil Contempt' 'court Orders Enforcement' 'development Control' 'breach of Injunction' 'sentencing for Contempt' 'planning Law']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Penalty Hearing After Guilty Plea in Civil Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Sarah Malass was guilty of contempt for failing to comply with court orders dated 11 August 2021 and 19 October 2021' 'Appropriate penalty for wilful contempt relating to ongoing unauthorised development and denial of access']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Sarah Malass found guilty of two counts of contempt; fined for each and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

['Fine of $20,000 for contempt of the August 2021 order.' 'Fine of $7,500 for contempt of the October 2021 order.' 'Sarah Malass to pay the costs of Strathfield Municipal Council of the contempt notice of motion filed 16 December 2021.']

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.