El-Ammar v Cheaitani [2023] NSWLEC 1034

El-Ammar v Cheaitani [2023] NSWLEC 1034

Although the four Leighton Cypress trees were originally planted as a hedge and continued to form a hedge when the application was filed, three had since been reduced to crowns-free stumps and the remaining tree did not form a hedge with them or with any other trees. Because the current state of affairs required by s 14A(1)(a) was not satisfied, Part 2A did not apply and the Court had no power to make orders concerning obstruction of views.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Precondition' 'neighbouring Trees']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Precondition' 'neighbouring Trees']

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 Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees were groups of 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied so as to give the Court power to make orders to remedy, restrain or prevent obstruction of views.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the four Leighton Cypress trees were originally planted as a hedge and continued to form a hedge when the application was filed, three had since been reduced to crowns-free stumps and the remaining tree did not form a hedge with them or with any other trees. Because the current state of affairs required by s 14A(1)(a) was not satisfied, Part 2A did not apply and the Court had no power to make orders concerning obstruction of views.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']