Solo v Sverkidis & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1198

Solo v Sverkidis & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1198

Although the mature trees were trees to which Part 2A applied, the applicant did not establish that they were currently severely obstructing views from his dwelling or that they were severely obstructing sunlight to his windows to the extent required by s 14E(2)(a)(i). The evidence indicated that much of the sunlight obstruction was likely caused by the height and proximity of the adjoining fence and level differences between the properties. Because the requisite level of satisfaction was not achieved, the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'pruning or Removal of Trees']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'pruning or Removal of Trees']

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 / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' conifers were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies." "Whether the trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the mature trees were trees to which Part 2A applied, the applicant did not establish that they were currently severely obstructing views from his dwelling or that they were severely obstructing sunlight to his windows to the extent required by s 14E(2)(a)(i). The evidence indicated that much of the sunlight obstruction was likely caused by the height and proximity of the adjoining fence and level differences between the properties. Because the requisite level of satisfaction was not achieved, the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']