Cisneros v Cairns [2020] NSWLEC 1597
Section 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was not met, as the respondents' hedge did not severely obstruct views from the applicants' property. The obstruction was at most minor to moderate, not 'severe' as required for relief. Therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.
- Parties
- First Applicant: Lucille Cisneros; Second Applicant: Anthony Wrigley; First Respondent: Anthony Cairns; Second Respondent: Janine Cairns
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Tree Dispute Application (class 2) / Judgment and Final Orders
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Tree Disputes, View Obstruction, Sunlight Obstruction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lucille Cisneros
First Applicant
Anthony Wrigley
Second Applicant
Anthony Cairns
First Respondent
Janine Cairns
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application (class 2) / Judgment and Final Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the hedge satisfies the definition in s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
- 2 Whether the hedge severely obstructs views from the applicants' dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)
- 3 Whether the requirements for making orders under the Act are satisfied
Ratio Decidendi
Section 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was not met, as the respondents' hedge did not severely obstruct views from the applicants' property. The obstruction was at most minor to moderate, not 'severe' as required for relief. Therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment