Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122

Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122

Although trees 1-12 comprised a hedge satisfying s 14A, the applicant failed the jurisdictional requirement in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) because the trees were not severely obstructing any view from the nominated viewing points at the time of the hearing. The applicant retained panoramic and impressive views of Whale Beach and the coastline, and any obstructions were filtered or minor in context. Future growth could not satisfy the statutory requirement that the trees are severely obstructing a view. The application was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A' 'future View Loss' 'pruning Orders']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A' 'future View Loss' 'pruning Orders']

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 S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trees 1-12 comprised a hedge for the purpose of s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." 'Whether future growth and possible future view obstruction could found jurisdiction for orders under Part 2A.' 'Whether orders should be made pruning and maintaining the trees to 2 m and requiring the respondent to pay costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although trees 1-12 comprised a hedge satisfying s 14A, the applicant failed the jurisdictional requirement in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) because the trees were not severely obstructing any view from the nominated viewing points at the time of the hearing. The applicant retained panoramic and impressive views of Whale Beach and the coastline, and any obstructions were filtered or minor in context. Future growth could not satisfy the statutory requirement that the trees are severely obstructing a view. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application in its entirety is dismissed.' 'The exhibits are retained.']