Macourt v Baudinet & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1631

Macourt v Baudinet & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1631

The application was dismissed because the relevant trees were not trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied: they were not planted so as to form a hedge. The undisputed evidence was that Mr Baudinet did not intend to establish a hedge when planting them, and their current arrangement of several species at irregular spacings in a non-linear form would not ordinarily be perceived as a hedge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Seeking Removal or Pruning of Neighbouring Trees Alleged to Obstruct Views / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'tree Removal or Pruning']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'tree Removal or Pruning']

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 Removal or Pruning of Neighbouring Trees Alleged to Obstruct Views / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents before orders could be made under s 14E(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the relevant trees were groups of two or more trees planted so as to form a hedge and rising to at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling for the purposes of s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the severity and nature of any obstruction outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the relevant trees were not trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied: they were not planted so as to form a hedge. The undisputed evidence was that Mr Baudinet did not intend to establish a hedge when planting them, and their current arrangement of several species at irregular spacings in a non-linear form would not ordinarily be perceived as a hedge.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']