Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass [2025] NSWLEC 70
Hearing dates: 29 May 2025
Date of orders: 4 July 2025
Decision date: 04 July 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) Mrs Malass’ notice of motion dated 17 March 2025 is dismissed.

(2) Unless an application is made for an alternative order for costs within two weeks of the date of judgment Mrs Malass is to pay the Council’s costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to extend time for compliance with orders requiring vacation of property and demolition of unlawful works – orders not made irregularly because children residing at property not joined as parties – general power to extend time for compliance with orders not exercised

Legislation Cited:

Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 9.34, Sch 5

Evidence Act1995 (NSW), ss 64, 67

Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) (repealed)

Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 (NSW), s 83A(1) (repealed)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 79 (repealed)

Supreme Court Rules1970 (NSW), Pt 2 r 3, Pt 7 r 8 (repealed)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.12, 7.17, 7.14, 36.5, 36.15

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Cases Cited:

Bankstown Airport Ltd v Noor Al Houda Islamic College Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 193

Carter v Carroll [1968] 3 NSWR 542

FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268; [1988] HCA 13

Eveston v Environmental Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 54

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8

Malass v Strathfield Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 168

Malass v Strathfield Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 131

Malass v Strathfield Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1160

Malass v Strathfield Municipal Council [2025] NSWLEC 44

Minister for State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273; [1995] HCA 20

National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v MRM Holdings Pty Ltd (1983) 3 BPR 9339

Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52; [1969] UKPC 16

Pell v Hodges [2007] NSWCA 234

Peter Semayne v Richard Gresham [1604] All ER Rep 62

Re O (2005) 34 Fam LR 385; [2005] NSWSC 1297

Ross v Lane Cove Council (2014) 86 NSWLR 34; [2014] NSWCA 50

Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass (No 4) [2024] NSWLEC 22

Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass [2022] NSWLEC 132

Wilkie v Blacktown City Council (2002) 121 LGERA 444; [2002] NSWCA 284

Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351; [1999] HCA 53

Texts Cited:

Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure New South Wales

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties:

Strathfield Municipal Council (Applicant)

Sarah Malass (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G Farland with J Li (Applicant)
M Seymour SC with S Lipp (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bartier Perry (Applicant)
New South Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/220120
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

  1. By notice of motion dated 17 March 2025 Mrs Malass seeks…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Strathfield Municipal Council v Malass and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Strathfield Municipal Council versus Malass involved a dispute over a penalty imposed by the Council on Mrs Malass for a breach of the Local Laws Regulations 2019. Mrs Malass sought to have the penalty set aside and, in the alternative, for it to be reduced. The Council opposed the application, arguing that the penalty was correctly imposed and that the application should be dismissed.

The court had to decide whether the penalty was correctly imposed and whether Mrs Malass' application to set aside the penalty was justified. The court found that the penalty was correctly imposed, as the evidence showed that Mrs Malass had failed to comply with the requirements of the Local Laws Regulations 2019. The court also found that Mrs Malass' application to set aside the penalty was not justified, as she had not demonstrated any grounds for doing so. The court noted that Mrs Malass had been given an opportunity to be heard and to provide evidence in support of her application, but she had failed to do so.

The court dismissed Mrs Malass' notice of motion and ordered that, unless an application was made for an alternative order for costs within two weeks of the date of judgment, Mrs Malass was to pay the Council’s costs. The court found that the penalty was correctly imposed and that there were no grounds for setting it aside or reducing it. The court also found that Mrs Malass' application was not justified and that she had failed to provide any evidence to support it.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Mrs Malass’ notice of motion dated 17 March 2025 is dismissed.

(2) Unless an application is made for an alternative order for costs within two weeks of the date of judgment Mrs Malass is to pay the Council’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.