Atkinson v Matherson [2011] NSWLEC 1121

Atkinson v Matherson [2011] NSWLEC 1121

The Court had jurisdiction because the nine Leighton Green trees formed a hedge satisfying s 14A and the intervening common property did not defeat the adjoining-land requirement. The hedge severely obstructed the applicant's kitchen window view, severely obstructed sunlight to the kitchen window, and severely obstructed sunlight to the lounge room window, although the lounge room view was not severely obstructed given remaining views. Balancing the severe obstructions against the respondent's privacy interests and the benefits of the hedge, the appropriate remedy was uniform pruning of all nine trees to an initial height 300 millimetres below the upper side of the kitchen windowsill,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Nine Leighton Green Trees / Principal Judgment; Final Orders After Hearing and Site Inspection
Outcome
Application allowed in part; pruning orders made against the respondent.
Legal Topics
['hedge Pruning' 'severe Obstruction of View' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight to a Window' 'jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees and Neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge Pruning' 'severe Obstruction of View' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight to a Window' 'jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Nine Leighton Green Trees / Principal Judgment; Final Orders After Hearing and Site Inspection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the nine Leighton Green trees were located on land adjoining the applicant's land for jurisdictional purposes despite a strip of common property between the trees and the applicant's unit" 'Whether the trees formed a hedge of two or more trees rising to at least 2.5 metres above existing ground level under s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' "Whether the hedge severely obstructed views from the applicant's kitchen window and lounge room window" "Whether the hedge severely obstructed sunlight to the applicant's kitchen window and lounge room window" "What pruning orders should appropriately balance the applicant's relief from severe obstruction against the respondent's interests in privacy and the benefits of the hedge"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction because the nine Leighton Green trees formed a hedge satisfying s 14A and the intervening common property did not defeat the adjoining-land requirement. The hedge severely obstructed the applicant's kitchen window view, severely obstructed sunlight to the kitchen window, and severely obstructed sunlight to the lounge room window, although the lounge room view was not severely obstructed given remaining views. Balancing the severe obstructions against the respondent's privacy interests and the benefits of the hedge, the appropriate remedy was uniform pruning of all nine trees to an initial height 300 millimetres below the upper side of the kitchen windowsill,...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; pruning orders made against the respondent.

Orders

  • ["The respondent is to prune all nine Leighton Green trees located along the rear boundary of her property to a point 300 millimetres below the height of the upper side of the kitchen windowsill of the applicant's unit." "The respondent is to prune the nine Leighton Green trees, in future, at such intervals as may...