Chevalier v Hyasat [2022] NSWLEC 1029

Chevalier v Hyasat [2022] NSWLEC 1029

The application failed because the only tree on the respondents' property was a single tree and not part of a hedge formed by two or more trees, so Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 did not apply and the Court could not make the requested pruning orders. The other identified tree was on public land managed by council, to which the Act did not apply. The jurisdictional failure made it unnecessary to consider the asserted severity of view obstruction or discretionary matters under s 14F.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'trees on Council Managed Land' 'costs']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'trees on Council Managed Land' 'costs']

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 (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied to a single tree alleged to obstruct views.' 'Whether the Court could make orders for a tree located on public land managed by council.' "Whether the applicants' request for costs could be determined by an Acting Commissioner."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the only tree on the respondents' property was a single tree and not part of a hedge formed by two or more trees, so Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 did not apply and the Court could not make the requested pruning orders. The other identified tree was on public land managed by council, to which the Act did not apply. The jurisdictional failure made it unnecessary to consider the asserted severity of view obstruction or discretionary matters under s 14F.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']