McDonald v Sheehan [2022] NSWLEC 1159

McDonald v Sheehan [2022] NSWLEC 1159

The application was refused because the Court was not satisfied that the four turpentine trees were planted by human hand or with any intention to form a hedge, and in the present they appeared to be four native trees growing close together rather than a hedge. Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 therefore did not apply and the Court could not make the pruning orders sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Seeking Orders for Pruning of Four Turpentine Trees / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
The application is refused.
Legal Topics
['pt 2 a Application' 'obstruction of Views' 'whether Trees Are Planted So as to Form a Hedge' 'impacts of Pruning']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['pt 2 a Application' 'obstruction of Views' 'whether Trees Are Planted So as to Form a Hedge' 'impacts of Pruning']

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 Seeking Orders for Pruning of Four Turpentine Trees / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicants made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owners under s 14E(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the four turpentine trees were planted on adjoining land so as to form a hedge rising to a height of at least 2.5 metres under s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the Court could make orders under Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 to remedy, restrain or prevent severe obstruction of the Applicants' view." 'Whether the pruning sought would be appropriate having regard to its impact on the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court was not satisfied that the four turpentine trees were planted by human hand or with any intention to form a hedge, and in the present they appeared to be four native trees growing close together rather than a hedge. Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 therefore did not apply and the Court could not make the pruning orders sought.

Court Disposition

The application is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']