Lewis v Lorden [2020] NSWLEC 1416

Lewis v Lorden [2020] NSWLEC 1416

The seven Ornamental Pears were a hedge within s 14A(1), the applicants had met the notice and reasonable-effort requirements, and the hedge was the primary and likely recurring obstruction of a narrow but iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge and water view from the applicants' upper-level bedroom. Although the hedge provided privacy and landscape amenity to the respondents, regular pruning and height maintenance would restore the applicants' view while retaining most of the hedge's benefits, so the applicants' interest in remedying the severe obstruction outweighed the undesirability of interfering with the trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Severe Obstruction of Views by a Hedge / Principal Judgment; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication
Outcome
Orders made requiring pruning and ongoing maintenance of the hedge at the respondents' expense.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'view Sharing' 'sydney Harbour Bridge View' 'pruning and Maintenance Orders' 'neighbouring Land']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment' 'property'] ['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'view Sharing' 'sydney Harbour Bridge View' 'pruning and Maintenance Orders' '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

Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Severe Obstruction of Views by a Hedge / Principal Judgment; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the row of Ornamental Pears formed a hedge to which Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied.' 'Whether the applicants had provided the required notice and made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owners.' "Whether the hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." "Whether the applicants' interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees." 'What orders, if any, should be made concerning pruning, maintenance, access and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The seven Ornamental Pears were a hedge within s 14A(1), the applicants had met the notice and reasonable-effort requirements, and the hedge was the primary and likely recurring obstruction of a narrow but iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge and water view from the applicants' upper-level bedroom. Although the hedge provided privacy and landscape amenity to the respondents, regular pruning and height maintenance would restore the applicants' view while retaining most of the hedge's benefits, so the applicants' interest in remedying the severe obstruction outweighed the undesirability of interfering with the trees.

Court Disposition

Orders made requiring pruning and ongoing maintenance of the hedge at the respondents' expense.

Orders

  • ['Prune the hedge, comprising T1 – T7, within 45 days, to a height lower than AHD31, OR to the height of a horizontal line equivalent to the middle horizontal crossbeam in the window of the spare bedroom (V1), whichever is lower.' 'Maintain the height of the hedge so that the trees never exceed a height above AHD31,...