Even a minor slip-up could see owner-builders face the same fate as the mother of three who risks jail unless she demolishes her Sydney mansion, an expert has warned. 

Sarah and Rabi Malass own the sprawling luxury home on Boden Avenue in Strathfield in Sydney's inner-west, which they built for them and their three children.

Ms Malass, 38, had been approved to demolish the original building in 2017 and construct a two-storey house with basement car parking and a swimming pool.

In 2020, Strathfield Council issued a stop-work order over unapproved additions, but the order was not followed, according to court documents. 

The unauthorised features included a spa room, playroom, gym and cool room, as well as a basement so large it effectively created a third storey. 

The council launched legal action against the Malass family, which came to a head at the Land and Environment Court last week, with no decision yet handed down. 

The case, which has stretched into a tense six-year legal battle, serves as a warning to other Australians, according to TikTok site inspector Zeher Khalil. 

'This is really serious, especially deviating from the plan. [The plans] are always the first thing I look at, because it's a big item,' he told the Daily Mail.

'Before we go to a job site, we look at whether the home meets the stamp plans. This [case] is why it's so important, because people don't realise how big a breach it is. 

'Even though the home looks so good, if something doesn't meet the stamp drawings, it can lead to this. 

'If the council finds out that the stamp documents weren't followed, you either have to update your building permit to match the conditions of the actual home, or you have got to demolish, like in this case here.' 

Mr Khalil, known as 'The TikTok Inspector', has spent a decade in construction and uses his platform to help buyers spot poorly built homes. 

He said homes are sometimes built beyond approved plans for several reasons. 

'What I see is that people try to cut costs, for example, like you know they change from brick to polystyrene because it's way cheaper,' he said.

'When they render it, you can't tell the difference and the homeowner would have saved money, but the drawings need to be updated because you changed what's specified on the plans.'

He said honest mistakes can also happen during construction, such as changing from Colorbond steel roofing to tiles. 

'It changes the weight of your house. That's more weight on your house and then your (foundation) is not going to function as intended, because it's designed for a lighter-weight roof than a heavy one,' Mr Khalil said. 

'If you do deviate from the plans, it might not be just as simple as 'I'm gonna put an extra wall there' or they wanted to change the look of it. 

'If you do change the look, you might interfere with the engineering, which means that the house is not safe anymore. 

'That's why you need to build as per the plans, because the plans have allowed for those specifications. You deviate from it and it can be dangerous.'

Mr Khalil said anyone changing a plan during construction should notify a certifier, surveyor or the council. 

For the Malass family, the legal battle escalated in 2024. Ms Malass, who is listed as the owner, was ordered to leave the property within ten months and demolish the unlawful works within 12 months, according to court documents. 

She pleaded guilty to contempt of court orders restricting building works on the property on two occasions, with the court finding her conduct was wilful.

Ms Malass requested an extension last year, which was rejected by Judge Nicola Pain in the Land and Environment Court in July 2025.

The court was told Ms Malass had requested the extension due to her and her husband's 'poor financial circumstances' and because she was unemployed.

Ms Malass told the court that tearing down and rebuilding the home would cost $10 million, but Judge Pain said there was 'very little documentation' to support her claims about her financial situation. 

She said Ms Malass did not provide a 'complete picture' to the court of her finances or her husband's, who she said was bankrupt. 

The court heard Ms Malass is the sole director and shareholder of SKJM Consortium, which borrowed money for the property, according to a loan document.

'That company purchased a property in Berrima for $6.8million in 2023. There is no registered mortgage on the title of that property,' Judge Pain said, noting Ms Malass was meeting her weekly mortgage repayments of $43,312.

'The same company owns two other properties according to the business records in evidence.'

Ms Malass said the Berrima purchase involved borrowings she had no knowledge of, as her husband handled such matters. No details were provided in her evidence.

The judge said she had incomplete information about Ms Malass's 'true financial position' which weighed against her application for an extension.

'Further, I do not consider the presence of Mr Malass and the children in the house on the property amounts to possession of the property,' Judge Pain said.

'While I appreciate that from the children's perspective in particular the situation is extremely unfortunate if they have to move, the circumstances resulting in the orders being made were entirely of Ms Malass' making.'

The judge said her financial situation was 'largely no different' in 2025 from when the stop work orders were made, including her husband's bankruptcy.

'If Ms Malass were permitted to continue to enjoy the benefit of the unauthorised works, noting that she has been for over four years already, that would effectively and substantially diminish the relevance of the planning regime,' Judge Pain said.

'Ms Malass admits [in 2025] in her first affidavit she and her family are residing at the property despite the order to vacate. Ms Malass is, until the orders are complied with, enjoying an illegitimate private benefit at the expense of the public.

'To extend the time for compliance only serves to enlarge that benefit, and continue the substantial adverse impacts.'

Judge Pain ruled that there would be no extension granted to Ms Malass.

Last week, the legal battle returned to the Land and Environment Court before Judge Pain for a two-day hearing. 

There has been no decision nor any indication of when it will be delivered. 

Strathfield Council is seeking that Ms Malass be convicted of contempt charges, fined, removed from the inner west property and jailed if she fails to demolish the home within 28 days. 

Daily Mail visited the Malass family home and spoke by intercom to Rabi Malass, 49, who said the family would not comment until after the hearing but claimed they were not living at the property.

Strathfield Council said it would not comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, but stressed that it takes its responsibilities seriously.

'Council is committed to applying equal standards to every application for the benefit of the community,' a spokesman told the Daily Mail.

'As the matter is before the Land and Environment Court, the council is unable to provide further comment at this time.'