Susan Ann Holz v Catherine Marie McMahon

The Court found technical contempt established against self-represented applicants who failed to comply with consent orders for construction of a boundary fence, specifically regarding the absence of a brick return on new concrete footing, insufficient engaged piers, and failure to pour new concrete footing for the main fence. However, the contempt was characterised as casual, accidental or unintentional rather than wilful, meaning no fine or punishment was warranted. The Court held that lay parties are responsible for the acts of their contractors in complying with court orders, but the degree of supervision reasonably expected of a lay person is limited — obvious matters like pier spacing should have been checked, but qualitative workmanship deficiencies were not matters a lay person could reasonably be expected to identify. The Court also held that 'brickwork' in the consent orders did not include engaged piers, and that compliance with Australian construction standards could not be implied into consent orders that made no reference to them.