Kingsley-Smith v O’Brian & ors [2016] NSWLEC 1606

Kingsley-Smith v O’Brian & ors [2016] NSWLEC 1606

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the bamboo caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to property or injury; nor was it shown that the trees severely obstruct sunlight or views to the required legislative standard. Consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

Parties
Applicant: Heather Kingsley-Smith; First Respondent: Benn O'Brian; Second Respondent: Zane O'Brian; Third Respondent: Noel Macnamara; Fourth Respondent: Lynne McPherson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Damage to Property, Obstruction of Sunlight, Obstruction of Views, Compensation
Property Law Environmental Law Tree Disputes Damage to Property Obstruction of Sunlight Obstruction of Views Compensation

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 8 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Kingsley-Smith

Applicant

Benn O'Brian

First Respondent

Zane O'Brian

Second Respondent

Noel Macnamara

Third Respondent

Lynne McPherson

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bamboo on respondents' property caused or is likely to cause damage to applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether the trees caused or are likely to cause injury
  3. 3 Whether the bamboo severely obstructs sunlight or views from the applicant's dwelling

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the bamboo caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to property or injury; nor was it shown that the trees severely obstruct sunlight or views to the required legislative standard. Consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application in its entirety is dismissed.