A suburban Adelaide resident, John Kitsis, has been found guilty of contempt for failing to dismantle an unauthorized cheesemaking facility in his backyard, resulting in a court order to pay over $120,000 in costs. The Environment, Resources and Development Court ruled that Kitsis did not have the necessary approval from the City of Charles Sturt council to operate the business from his West Croydon home.
The court initially ordered the removal of the facility in March 2020, but Kitsis only complied in June 2025, several months after being found guilty of contempt in February of the same year. Senior Judge Michael Durrant described the contempt as being “at the higher end of seriousness.”
Background of the Case
The case dates back to April 2018 when the council was first alerted to the unauthorized structures and dairy equipment by a neighbor’s complaint. Kitsis had claimed to have approval for the cheese business, citing a food business notification lodged with the council, which had acknowledged receipt.
However, during a September 2018 inspection, council staff discovered that a garage and rumpus room had been converted into a self-contained residence with built-in cooking and laundry facilities. The court’s March 2020 orders demanded the removal of all dairy production equipment, including cooking and preserving appliances.
Judicial Observations and Rulings
Senior Judge Durrant condemned Kitsis’s prolonged non-compliance, noting that despite Kitsis’s claims of the business being unsuccessful with no sales, the failure to adhere to court orders was significant. Kitsis’s defense that he did not understand the proceedings due to language barriers was dismissed by the judge, who pointed out that Kitsis had communicated in English through family members and had corresponded with the council and the court.
“He has family members who can speak and write in English,” Senior Judge Durrant said. “He has corresponded in writing through his son or by himself directly to the City of Charles Sturt, and to the court.”
The court also noted Kitsis’s arrest after failing to appear in court, leading to a three-day custody period, which the judge described as “regrettable but necessary.”
Financial and Legal Implications
Given Kitsis’s limited income, age, and pension status, Senior Judge Durrant declined to impose additional penalties beyond the time already spent in custody. However, Kitsis has been ordered to cover significant costs to both the council and the court’s Registrar, totaling $123,266.36.
The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to local regulations and court orders, especially in matters involving unauthorized business operations. The case highlights the potential financial and legal repercussions of non-compliance, serving as a cautionary tale for others who might consider similar ventures without proper authorization.
Looking Forward
This case marks a significant enforcement of local planning laws, emphasizing the council’s commitment to maintaining regulatory standards. As urban areas continue to grow, the balance between residential living and small business operations remains a critical issue for local governments.
For Kitsis, the financial burden imposed by the court’s decision is substantial, and it remains to be seen how he will manage the payment of the ordered costs. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and complying with legal requirements in business ventures, particularly in residential zones.
As the City of Charles Sturt and other councils continue to monitor and regulate local developments, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving unauthorized business activities in residential areas.
