Probert v Christie [2021] NSWLEC 1529

Probert v Christie [2021] NSWLEC 1529

The application failed because the applicants did not establish that the subject trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, and, even if they had, the alleged obstruction of views was not 'severe' given the extraordinary breadth of the available outlook; further, the demonstrable benefits of the trees to privacy and the environment outweighed the applicants’ desire for improved views.

Parties
First Applicant: Keith Probert; Second Applicant: Susan Probert; Respondent: Amiel Christie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Restrictive Covenants, Obstruction of Views, Hedge Definitions, Council Consent for Pruning, Jurisdictional Prerequisites Under Trees Act, Balancing Interests (privacy/ecosystem Vs. Views)
Environmental Law Property Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Restrictive Covenants Obstruction of Views Hedge Definitions Council Consent for Pruning Jurisdictional Prerequisites Under Trees Act +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Probert

First Applicant

Susan Probert

Second Applicant

Amiel Christie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 apply to the subject trees?
  2. 2 Are the trees a 'hedge' within s 14A(1) of the Act?
  3. 3 Were the trees 'planted so as to form a hedge'?

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicants did not establish that the subject trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, and, even if they had, the alleged obstruction of views was not 'severe' given the extraordinary breadth of the available outlook; further, the demonstrable benefits of the trees to privacy and the environment outweighed the applicants’ desire for improved views.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.