Holdsworth v Daddo [2022] NSWLEC 1302

Holdsworth v Daddo [2022] NSWLEC 1302

The palm trees were not planted so as to form a hedge in accordance with s 14A(1), and even if they were, the obstruction caused was not severe in the context of the totality of the applicants' view, thus the Court lacked jurisdiction to make orders under the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Tests']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Tests']

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

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether three palm trees were planted so as to form a hedge within meaning of Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 s 14A(1)' 'Whether obstruction of view caused by those trees was severe under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)' 'Whether Court had jurisdiction under the Act to make orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The palm trees were not planted so as to form a hedge in accordance with s 14A(1), and even if they were, the obstruction caused was not severe in the context of the totality of the applicants' view, thus the Court lacked jurisdiction to make orders under the Act.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']