Drummond v Malicki [2019] NSWLEC 1348

Drummond v Malicki [2019] NSWLEC 1348

Although the five trees formed a hedge for the purposes of the Act and the reasonable-effort requirement was deemed satisfied, the obstruction of the applicants' total view was not severe. The hedge significantly restricted views to the north, but the vast majority of the broad views from the principal living areas remained intact, making the impact moderate at best. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not met, the Court could not make orders interfering with the hedge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'neighbouring Trees' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'neighbouring Trees' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing']

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 S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the five trees formed a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the applicants made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents under s 14E(1)(a).' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicants' dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the five trees formed a hedge for the purposes of the Act and the reasonable-effort requirement was deemed satisfied, the obstruction of the applicants' total view was not severe. The hedge significantly restricted views to the north, but the vast majority of the broad views from the principal living areas remained intact, making the impact moderate at best. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not met, the Court could not make orders interfering with the hedge.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']