Campbell & anor v Bowen & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1197

Campbell & anor v Bowen & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1197

Part 2A did not apply to the southern hedge because it did not reach 2.5 m at the inspection and hearing. Although the northern hedge satisfied the s 14A(1) jurisdictional tests because it included two or more trees taller than 2.5 m, the obstruction caused by trees within the northern hedge that were properly within the application was only minor, with the main view loss caused by trees outside the application or outside the Court's jurisdiction. Because the Court was not satisfied that there was a severe obstruction of a view, s 14E(2)(a)(ii) required that no orders be made, and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Height Test' 'view Loss Assessment']
['environmental Law' 'trees Disputes' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Height Test' 'view Loss Assessment']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied to the southern hedge where the trees did not reach 2.5 m at the inspection and hearing.' 'Whether Part 2A applied to the northern hedge where some plants were less than 2.5 m but two or more trees in the hedge were taller than 2.5 m.' "Whether the northern hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicants' property within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Part 2A did not apply to the southern hedge because it did not reach 2.5 m at the inspection and hearing. Although the northern hedge satisfied the s 14A(1) jurisdictional tests because it included two or more trees taller than 2.5 m, the obstruction caused by trees within the northern hedge that were properly within the application was only minor, with the main view loss caused by trees outside the application or outside the Court's jurisdiction. Because the Court was not satisfied that there was a severe obstruction of a view, s 14E(2)(a)(ii) required that no orders be made, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']