Telfer v Washington [2014] NSWLEC 1127

Telfer v Washington [2014] NSWLEC 1127

Trees T8 to T16 did not form a hedge and trees T1, T2 and T5 were not shown to have been planted so as to form a hedge, so the Court lacked jurisdiction over those trees. Trees T3, T4 and T6 satisfied the jurisdictional test, but the severe lake view obstruction from the verandah and dining room was caused by T1, T3, T4 and T5, of which only T3 and T4 were within jurisdiction. Annual pruning of T3 and T4 to the height of the applicant's verandah railing would sufficiently restore the view while maintaining the respondents' privacy, and it was reasonable for the applicant to carry out the pruning.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Seeking Orders for Pruning Neighbouring Trees to Restore and Maintain Views / Principal Judgment; Application Determined With Final Orders
Outcome
The application is upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'orders for Pruning' 'jurisdiction Under S 14 A(1)(a)']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'orders for Pruning' 'jurisdiction Under S 14 A(1)(a)']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Seeking Orders for Pruning Neighbouring Trees to Restore and Maintain Views / Principal Judgment; Application Determined With Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the relevant trees were planted so as to form a hedge and satisfied the jurisdictional test in s 14A(1)(a).' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction over trees T1 to T16 for the alleged view obstruction.' "Whether trees within the Court's jurisdiction caused a severe obstruction of lake views from the applicant's dwelling." 'Whether pruning orders should be made and, if so, on what terms.']

Ratio Decidendi

Trees T8 to T16 did not form a hedge and trees T1, T2 and T5 were not shown to have been planted so as to form a hedge, so the Court lacked jurisdiction over those trees. Trees T3, T4 and T6 satisfied the jurisdictional test, but the severe lake view obstruction from the verandah and dining room was caused by T1, T3, T4 and T5, of which only T3 and T4 were within jurisdiction. Annual pruning of T3 and T4 to the height of the applicant's verandah railing would sufficiently restore the view while maintaining the respondents' privacy, and it was reasonable for the applicant to carry out the pruning.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['Beginning 2014 and annually thereafter, in the month of July, the applicant is to prune trees T3 (Michelia) and T4 (Lilly Pilly) to a height level with, and no lower than, her verandah railing, which is some 880 mm above verandah floor level.' 'The applicant is to dispose of all debris from these works.' "The...