Campbell v Voller [2010] NSWLEC 1351

Campbell v Voller [2010] NSWLEC 1351

Hedge 2 and the garden view point did not concern views from a dwelling, so the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders about them. Hedge 1 did not severely obstruct sunlight to the nominated windows, given their aspect and other physical obstructions, and did not severely obstruct views from the applicants' dwelling. In any event, the applicants' interest in reducing or removing the obstruction did not outweigh the respondents' privacy interest and the consequences of interfering with the hedge. The statutory tests were not met, so no orders could be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedges on Adjoining Land / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction' 'sunlight to Windows of a Dwelling' 'views From a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Tests Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'neighbouring Land']
['trees Disputes' 'property Law' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge Obstruction' 'sunlight to Windows of a Dwelling' 'views From a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Tests Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'neighbouring Land']

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

Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedges on Adjoining Land / Ex Tempore Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether hedge 2 could be the subject of orders where the alleged obstruction was to a view of the footpath when exiting a driveway rather than a view from a dwelling.' "Whether hedge 1 severely obstructed sunlight to three windows of the applicants' dwelling." "Whether hedge 1 severely obstructed views from the applicants' dwelling." "If hedge 1 severely obstructed views, whether the applicants' interest in removing, remedying or restraining the obstruction outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Hedge 2 and the garden view point did not concern views from a dwelling, so the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders about them. Hedge 1 did not severely obstruct sunlight to the nominated windows, given their aspect and other physical obstructions, and did not severely obstruct views from the applicants' dwelling. In any event, the applicants' interest in reducing or removing the obstruction did not outweigh the respondents' privacy interest and the consequences of interfering with the hedge. The statutory tests were not met, so no orders could be made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • ['The application in its entirety is dismissed.']