For decades, John Bruce Grant has fought to keep his beloved “Granties Maze” alive. First, the Kiama Municipal Council said he built attractions without approval. Then the Court ordered him to dismantle them. He didn’t. Now, he has been found guilty of contempt.

BROUGHTON VILLAGE, NSW – The hedge maze still stands. The kiosk still sells drinks. But the giant slide, the bumper cars, the archery range, and the “Ninja Walls” – all ordered to be torn down – remain stubbornly in place. And that defiance has landed 78‑year‑old John Bruce Grant in criminal contempt of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court.

On 29 May 2026, Justice Pepper handed down a judgment finding Mr Grant guilty of contempt for failing to comply with a 2024 court order that required him to dismantle more than a dozen unapproved amusement rides and attractions on his property at 219 Donovan Road, Broughton Village. The ruling, John Bruce Grant v Kiama Municipal Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 67, is the latest – and perhaps most serious – chapter in a dispute that has simmered for over 40 years.

A quick recap: from maze to legal maze

The story begins in 1985, when Mr Grant, a Vietnam War veteran, obtained approval for a “Tourist Gardens” and a kiosk on his 30‑hectare property. Over the years, he planted a vegetative maze and added attractions: trampoline pits, a mini‑golf course, canoe ponds, and later, more elaborate rides.

In 2005, after a series of refusals, the Land and Environment Court granted him deferred development consent for a “small domestically‑based enterprise” – but specifically noted that several structures already on the land had no approval. That 2005 consent became the legal foundation for everything that followed.

Despite the warnings, Mr Grant kept building. By 2016, he had installed 15 attractions without any consent and wanted to add 20 more. The council refused the application in 2019. Mr Grant did not appeal.

In July 2021, the council issued three Development Control Orders (DCOs) classifying attractions as high, medium or low risk, and ordering Mr Grant to stop using them and dismantle them. Instead of complying, Mr Grant sued the council to stop it from entering his land.

That move backfired. In December 2024, Justice Robson ruled that most of the attractions had been built without development consent and ordered them to be dismantled within 90 days (Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 136). The order covered the Giant Slide, Paddleboats, Zorb Water Balls, Archery Range, Aero Board, Ninja Walls, Quad Bike Track, Bumper Car Track, and several other rides and structures.

Mr Grant was given 90 days – until mid‑March 2025 – to comply.

The deadline came and went

By May 2025, nothing had been dismantled.

Council compliance officers inspected the property on 27 May, 27 September and 4 October 2025. Their photographs – later tendered in court – showed the giant slide still looming, the Ninja Walls still standing, and the small rides still sitting inside their corrugated iron sheds. Some attractions were fenced off or partly overgrown, but none had been taken apart.

Worse, the inspections revealed that Granties Maze was still open for business. On 27 September 2025, a council officer observed a family – two adults and three young children – arrive and head to the reception building. Mr Grant reportedly remarked, “they are my first customers for the day.” Television advertisements for the park were still airing during school holidays.

The council tried repeatedly to warn Mr Grant. They sent him a copy of the court’s orders, phoned him, personally served letters giving him deadlines, and finally told him that if he did not comply by 19 September 2025, they would seek contempt proceedings. The deadline passed. On 2 December 2025, the council filed a notice of motion asking the court to find Mr Grant guilty of contempt.

The contempt hearing: admissions from the bar table

The contempt motion was heard on 29 April 2026 before Justice Pepper. Mr Grant, now 78, again represented himself. The court took special care to ensure fairness to an elderly litigant in person, bifurcating the hearing into a liability phase and a later penalty phase.

The council’s evidence included detailed affidavits from compliance coordinator Darren Hewitt and solicitor Ben Kuzman, along with dozens of photographs showing the undismantled attractions. Mr Grant did not cross‑examine any of the council’s witnesses.

Then Mr Grant gave evidence. Under oath, he made a series of admissions that proved fatal:

Q: Mr Grant, in relation to the rides and attractions that the Court required you to dismantle in 90 days, you agree with me that none of those items have been dismantled?

A: No, and they haven’t been used either. They are my property.

Q: … I think you referred to as the Ninja Wall… to the extent that corrugated iron or whatnot is missing, that was a product of a hundred kilometre winds blowing the structure?

A: Yes.

Q: Not you actively dismantling?

A: No, no. I agree with you. I didn’t dismantle it. As I said, I’m nearly 80 and I’m still working.

He repeated his admission several times. He also argued that the “Small Rides Area Addition” – a shed containing small rides – was still operating because he believed it had been approved by council in 2018. The court noted that the 2024 dismantling order specifically required the rides inside the shed to be dismantled, not the shed itself, and the photographs clearly showed the rides were still there.

“Guilty of contempt”

Justice Pepper applied the well‑established principles: contempt is simply disobedience to a court order, proved beyond reasonable doubt. The contemnor’s state of mind – whether the disobedience was wilful or merely technical – goes to penalty, not to the finding of guilt itself.

The evidence was overwhelming. “On the basis of his admissions made in Court, and the evidence of the Council,” her Honour wrote, “there is no doubt whatsoever that Grant is guilty of contempt in that he has failed to comply with the dismantling order.”

The finding of contempt was formalised in orders made on 29 May 2026. The court reserved the question of punishment – which may include a fine or other sanctions – to a later hearing. Directions were set for 12 June 2026 to prepare for a penalty hearing. The court strongly urged Mr Grant to obtain legal representation before that hearing, given the serious consequences that can attach to criminal contempt.

What happens now?

Mr Grant remains free pending the penalty hearing. But he now faces punishment for defying a direct court order. Possible outcomes include a substantial fine, a community correction order, or even imprisonment – though that is rare for civil contempt in planning matters. The court will also decide costs; the council is seeking indemnity costs.

Meanwhile, the unauthorised attractions remain standing. The council has not yet taken direct action to dismantle them itself (a power it could seek if contempt remedies prove insufficient). But the message from the court is unmistakable: court orders are not suggestions.

The human story behind the contempt

Mr Grant has invested over $10 million in Granties Maze since 1983. He told the court he is “nearly 80 and still working.” He feels victimised by a council that changed the zoning in 2011 to prohibit amusement parks – a change he says he was never told about. He still believes many of his attractions were implicitly approved in the 2005 consent, despite the court repeatedly finding otherwise.

But the law is clear: a development consent does not give a green light to add new rides at will. Each new attraction requires its own assessment. And when a court orders dismantling, dismantling must happen – not excuses, not delay, not overgrown fences.

Justice Pepper’s judgment notes that the purpose of contempt punishment is twofold: to enforce the court’s orders and to vindicate the authority of the court. “Non‑compliance with an order or a judgment of the court,” she wrote, quoting a 1995 High Court case, “necessarily constitutes an interference with the administration of justice.”

The hedge maze may still charm visitors. The kiosk may still sell ice creams. But the giant slide, the bumper cars, the archery range, the Ninja Walls – they were supposed to be gone by March 2025. Instead, they have become the centrepiece of a criminal finding against a stubborn, heartsick 78‑year‑old who refuses to let go of his dream.

The penalty hearing will determine just how high the price of that refusal will be.

The two key judgments:

• Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 136 (12 December 2024) – declaration of unlawful development and dismantling order.

• John Bruce Grant v Kiama Municipal Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 67 (29 May 2026) – finding of contempt for failing to comply with dismantling order.

This article is a summary of a judgment in the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales and does not constitute legal advice nor should it be taken as such. You should seek tailored advice which considers your individual circumstances.