Langley v Whitton [2013] NSWLEC 1036

Langley v Whitton [2013] NSWLEC 1036

The Court found that none of the palms in the lower garden area formed a hedge and did not need to decide whether the upper garden palms formed a hedge because, at the time of the hearing, the palms obstructed less than half of the available water views and allowed filtered views through the palms. The obstruction was less than severe, so s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied, the Court's jurisdiction was not enlivened, and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'tree Removal Orders']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'tree Removal Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' palms were planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the palms were more than 2.5 metres tall within s 14A(1)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the palms severely obstructed the applicants' view from their dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether any severe obstruction outweighed reasons not to interfere with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that none of the palms in the lower garden area formed a hedge and did not need to decide whether the upper garden palms formed a hedge because, at the time of the hearing, the palms obstructed less than half of the available water views and allowed filtered views through the palms. The obstruction was less than severe, so s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied, the Court's jurisdiction was not enlivened, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']