Nolen & anor v Balodis & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1119

Nolen & anor v Balodis & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1119

The Court was not satisfied that the trees caused or were likely to cause property damage or injury, as required by s 10(2) of the Act; no actual damage was proven, claimed injury was self-inflicted and not by the tree, and maintenance issues did not meet the statutory test. For Part 2A, the Court was not satisfied that the trees severely obstructed sunlight or views to the relevant windows, nor that the alleged obstructions were greater than when the applicants purchased the property. Even if obstruction was demonstrated, the balance of factors did not justify orders against the trees.

Parties
Applicant: Glenn Nolen; Applicant: Linda Ross; Respondent: Nicole Balodis; Respondent: Evan Guyatt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (removal, Pruning, Obstruction) / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Obstruction of Sunlight, Obstruction of Views, Potential Property Damage From Trees, Leaf Litter and Nuisance, Land and Environment Court Procedure
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Obstruction of Sunlight Obstruction of Views Potential Property Damage From Trees Leaf Litter and Nuisance Land and Environment Court Procedure

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenn Nolen

Applicant

Linda Ross

Applicant

Nicole Balodis

Respondent

Evan Guyatt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute (removal, Pruning, Obstruction) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees have caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to applicants' property within s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the trees are likely to cause injury to any person
  3. 3 Whether the trees are severely obstructing sunlight to a window or views from applicants' dwelling under s 14E(2) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the trees caused or were likely to cause property damage or injury, as required by s 10(2) of the Act; no actual damage was proven, claimed injury was self-inflicted and not by the tree, and maintenance issues did not meet the statutory test. For Part 2A, the Court was not satisfied that the trees severely obstructed sunlight or views to the relevant windows, nor that the alleged obstructions were greater than when the applicants purchased the property. Even if obstruction was demonstrated, the balance of factors did not justify orders against the trees.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application in its entirety is dismissed.