Cisneros v Cairns [2020] NSWLEC 1597

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the hedge satisfies the definition in s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the hedge severely obstructs views from the applicants' dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)
  3. 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.