Storer v Kinnaird [2017] NSWLEC 1012

Storer v Kinnaird [2017] NSWLEC 1012

Although trees 2-6 severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling, the Court was not satisfied that the trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1)(a). The trees comprised different species, were spaced non-uniformly, and appeared to have been randomly planted as individual specimens around the edge of the lawn rather than planted with the purpose of forming a hedge. Because the trees were not trees to which Part 2A applies, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the remaining tests in s 14E(2) or make the requested pruning or removal orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders Concerning Trees Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders Concerning Trees Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees were trees to which Part 2A applies under s 14A(1)(a), being two or more trees planted so as to form a hedge.' "Whether the Court's powers to make pruning or removal orders under Part 2A were engaged."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although trees 2-6 severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling, the Court was not satisfied that the trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1)(a). The trees comprised different species, were spaced non-uniformly, and appeared to have been randomly planted as individual specimens around the edge of the lawn rather than planted with the purpose of forming a hedge. Because the trees were not trees to which Part 2A applies, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the remaining tests in s 14E(2) or make the requested pruning or removal orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']