Eaton & anor v Morris & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1314

Eaton & anor v Morris & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1314

Although leave was granted to rely on the amended application and the remaining trees were considered at their highest as including a second hedge, the Court found that the respondents' trees did not severely obstruct a view from the applicants' dwelling. There were generally unobstructed panoramic views of the city skyline, Opera House, Harbour Bridge and North Sydney skyline from most parts of the verandah, and only from the most recessed southern corner were views of the city CBD and Opera House blocked while the Harbour Bridge remained visible. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not met, the application had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Tree Dispute Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing of Amended Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'amended Tree Dispute Application' 'court Jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'tree Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'amended Tree Dispute Application' 'court Jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']

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 Tree Dispute Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing of Amended Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees the subject of the amended application were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' "Whether the respondents' trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." "Whether the applicants' interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained justified an order interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although leave was granted to rely on the amended application and the remaining trees were considered at their highest as including a second hedge, the Court found that the respondents' trees did not severely obstruct a view from the applicants' dwelling. There were generally unobstructed panoramic views of the city skyline, Opera House, Harbour Bridge and North Sydney skyline from most parts of the verandah, and only from the most recessed southern corner were views of the city CBD and Opera House blocked while the Harbour Bridge remained visible. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not met, the application had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The applicants are granted leave to rely on the amended tree dispute application and amended tree dispute claim form filed on 28 July 2016.' 'The application is dismissed.']