Hunt v Troy [2011] NSWLEC 1148

Hunt v Troy [2011] NSWLEC 1148

The Court could consider only the trees that formed two hedges, H1 and H2, and on the facts observed at the hearing those hedges did not severely obstruct any view from the applicants' dwelling and there was no reliable evidence that they severely obstructed sunlight to a window. Because the statutory tests in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) and s 14E(2)(a)(i) were not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to make the orders sought, including any order for future maintenance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'views' 'sunlight Obstruction' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']
['tree Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'views' 'sunlight Obstruction' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trees on the respondent's land formed hedges to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies." "Whether any hedge caused a severe obstruction of views from the applicants' dwelling at the time of the hearing." "Whether any hedge caused a severe obstruction of sunlight to windows in the applicants' dwelling." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for trimming or future maintenance of the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court could consider only the trees that formed two hedges, H1 and H2, and on the facts observed at the hearing those hedges did not severely obstruct any view from the applicants' dwelling and there was no reliable evidence that they severely obstructed sunlight to a window. Because the statutory tests in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) and s 14E(2)(a)(i) were not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to make the orders sought, including any order for future maintenance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']