Blau v Levi [2010] NSWLEC 1371
Vegetation in planter boxes outside balustrade constitutes a hedge under the Trees Act and severely obstructs a view from the applicant's dwelling, warranting pruning orders; other vegetation does not constitute a hedge or severely obstruct view, so corresponding applications are dismissed.
- Parties
- Applicant: A Blau; Respondent: C Levi
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Partially upheld; application dismissed in part, upheld in part.
- Legal Topics
- Tree Disputes, Hedge Definition, Obstruction of View, Privacy Protection
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A Blau
Applicant
C Levi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 What constitutes a hedge for the purposes of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
- 2 Whether vegetation causes severe obstruction of view as required for jurisdiction
- 3 Whether plants in containers or planter boxes may count as a hedge
Ratio Decidendi
Vegetation in planter boxes outside balustrade constitutes a hedge under the Trees Act and severely obstructs a view from the applicant's dwelling, warranting pruning orders; other vegetation does not constitute a hedge or severely obstruct view, so corresponding applications are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Partially upheld; application dismissed in part, upheld in part.
Orders
- The application with respect to the bamboo is dismissed.
- The application with respect to the Murraya hedge 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