Catlin v King & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1603
The trees were not planted so as to form a hedge within the meaning of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, as their spacing, species diversity, and staggered planting times give the appearance of an informal garden rather than a hedge. Therefore, Part 2A of the Act does not apply and the Court lacks jurisdiction to make the requested orders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Part 2 a / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['trees' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' "interpretation of 'hedge'"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Part 2 a / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the trees are 'trees to which Part 2A applies' under s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" 'Whether the trees were planted so as to form a hedge under the meaning of the Act']
Ratio Decidendi
The trees were not planted so as to form a hedge within the meaning of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, as their spacing, species diversity, and staggered planting times give the appearance of an informal garden rather than a hedge. Therefore, Part 2A of the Act does not apply and the Court lacks jurisdiction to make the requested orders.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment