Liu v Li [2021] NSWLEC 1376

The cypress tree severely obstructs the applicant's district view from ground floor windows, meeting the statutory test under s 14E(2)(a)(ii), warranting removal. Pittosporum undulatum, being a weed, should also be removed to prevent future similar obstruction. Removal orders are necessary and proportionate given minimal impact on respondent's amenity and privacy.

Parties: Applicant: Fuling Liu; Respondent: Yang Li
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 22 June 2021
Procedural Posture: Class 2 / Principal Judgment
Outcome: Application granted to the extent of specified orders.
Legal Topics: Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Obstruction of View, Obstruction of Sunlight

Environmental Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Obstruction of View Obstruction of Sunlight

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Fuling Liu

Applicant

Yang Li

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 2 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trees form a hedge as defined by legislation
2 Whether trees severely obstruct sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling
3 Whether trees severely obstruct a view from the applicant's dwelling

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted to the extent of specified orders.

Orders

Within 30 days, respondent to engage and pay a suitably qualified arborist to remove the cypress (T1 'pine' in the application) and Pittosporum undulatum in the hedge along rear boundary to no more than 100 mm above ground level, works done per 2016 Safe Work Australia Guide.
If not removed within 30 days, applicant may engage and pay for removal within 60 days, with 7 days’ notice to respondent.