Akhurst v Fletcher [2023] NSWLEC 1534

Akhurst v Fletcher [2023] NSWLEC 1534

The application was refused because the applicants failed to prove that the nominated trees satisfied s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. The Court found that T4 and T5 were not members of a hedge due to dissimilarity and spatial separation, T1 was an individual amenity tree because any second Blueberry Ash with which it may once have formed a hedge was absent, and there was no evidence that T2 and T3 were planted together or with T1 for the purpose of forming a hedge. As the alleged hedge did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of Part 2A, the Court had no power to make orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged High Hedges Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
The application is refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'privacy' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'whether Trees Were Planted So as to Form a Hedge']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'privacy' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'whether Trees Were Planted So as to Form a Hedge']

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 Concerning Alleged High Hedges Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the nominated trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 to make orders remedying obstruction of views.' 'Whether the applicants satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and onus of proof for relief under Part 2A.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicants failed to prove that the nominated trees satisfied s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. The Court found that T4 and T5 were not members of a hedge due to dissimilarity and spatial separation, T1 was an individual amenity tree because any second Blueberry Ash with which it may once have formed a hedge was absent, and there was no evidence that T2 and T3 were planted together or with T1 for the purpose of forming a hedge. As the alleged hedge did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of Part 2A, the Court had no power to make orders.

Court Disposition

The application is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']