Murray v Li [2018] NSWLEC 1209

Murray v Li [2018] NSWLEC 1209

Although the trees constitute a hedge and the properties are 'adjoining land' for the purposes of the Act, the obstruction of view caused by the trees is not 'severe' and therefore the jurisdiction for an order to prune the trees is not enlivened under s 14E.

Parties
Applicant: Alison Murray; Respondent: Man Li
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees and Vegetation Disputes, Obstruction of Views, Hedges, Interpretation of 'adjoining Land'
Environmental Law Property Law Trees and Vegetation Disputes Obstruction of Views Hedges Interpretation of 'adjoining Land'

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Murray

Applicant

Man Li

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees form a hedge under s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the properties are 'adjoining land' under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the obstruction of views is 'severe' under s 14E of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trees constitute a hedge and the properties are 'adjoining land' for the purposes of the Act, the obstruction of view caused by the trees is not 'severe' and therefore the jurisdiction for an order to prune the trees is not enlivened under s 14E.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.