Hyde v Vagg [2020] NSWLEC 1009

Hyde v Vagg [2020] NSWLEC 1009

The hedge satisfied s 14A(1) because the Camellia trees were planted as a hedge and all exceeded 2.5 metres. Although the quantitatively obstructed part of the view was relatively small and the applicant retained extensive harbour and Harbour Bridge views, the qualitative significance of the obstructed view of much of the Sydney Opera House from living areas meant the obstruction was severe for the purposes of s 14E(2)(a)(ii). On balancing the applicant's interest against the respondents' privacy, shading, garden amenity and environmental considerations under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F, the Court found that targeted pruning would restore views while causing only minor loss of amenity or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning High Hedges Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'iconic Views' 'tree Pruning Orders' 'balancing View Loss Against Privacy and Amenity']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'planning and Environmental Law'] ['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'iconic Views' 'tree Pruning Orders' 'balancing View Loss Against Privacy and Amenity']

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 High Hedges Obstructing Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Camellia trees were planted so as to form a hedge and rose to a height of at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the hedge 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 applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b), having regard to s 14F." 'Whether orders should be made requiring pruning of the hedge and allocating the cost of the works to the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hedge satisfied s 14A(1) because the Camellia trees were planted as a hedge and all exceeded 2.5 metres. Although the quantitatively obstructed part of the view was relatively small and the applicant retained extensive harbour and Harbour Bridge views, the qualitative significance of the obstructed view of much of the Sydney Opera House from living areas meant the obstruction was severe for the purposes of s 14E(2)(a)(ii). On balancing the applicant's interest against the respondents' privacy, shading, garden amenity and environmental considerations under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F, the Court found that targeted pruning would restore views while causing only minor loss of amenity or...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['The application is granted.' 'Within 45 days of these orders, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent must prune the Camellia trees at the eastern end of the House Side Hedge 1 down to the height of the Harbour Side Hedge 2 so that the length of Hedge 1 is reduced by 1.5 metres, such that Hedge 1 then...