Lazos v Xu & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1420

Lazos v Xu & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1420

Although the conifers formed trees to which Part 2A applied, the applicant did not provide evidence sufficient to satisfy the Court that they were currently severely obstructing sunlight to the nominated windows or severely obstructing a view from the dwelling. The s 14E(2) jurisdictional requirements were not met, so the Court's power to make orders interfering with the trees was not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'insufficient Evidence']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment Court Class 2 Jurisdiction'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'insufficient Evidence']

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 / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the row of conifers were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(i)." "Whether the trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." 'Whether the severity and nature of any obstruction justified disturbing or interfering with the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the conifers formed trees to which Part 2A applied, the applicant did not provide evidence sufficient to satisfy the Court that they were currently severely obstructing sunlight to the nominated windows or severely obstructing a view from the dwelling. The s 14E(2) jurisdictional requirements were not met, so the Court's power to make orders interfering with the trees was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']