Abela v Hammond [2019] NSWLEC 1160
The application was refused because the trees were not planted in a linear fashion or so as to form a hedge, and even if they could be characterised as a hedge, the Court was not satisfied that they severely obstructed the applicants' views given the remaining beach and water views.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 April 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Onsite Hearing and Final Decision
- Outcome
- The application is refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'pruning of Trees' 'agreement Between Neighbours']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Onsite Hearing and Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the trees were planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' 'Whether the trees were at least 2.5 metres tall within s 14A(1)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether the trees severely obstructed views from the applicants' property within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)."]
Ratio Decidendi
The application was refused because the trees were not planted in a linear fashion or so as to form a hedge, and even if they could be characterised as a hedge, the Court was not satisfied that they severely obstructed the applicants' views given the remaining beach and water views.
Court Disposition
The application is refused.
Orders
- ['The application is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment