Hellier & anor v Paver & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1235

Hellier & anor v Paver & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1235

The application was dismissed because Tree 1, Tree 11 and the Cotoneasters did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that they were planted so as to form a hedge, and the remaining trees in Hedge 1 did not cause severe view obstruction warranting orders. Extensive water views remained from the applicants' deck, views through the dwelling were only partly affected after pruning, and much obstruction through the side windows was caused by Tree 1 and Tree 11, over which the Court found it had no jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Hedge View Obstruction / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Test for Trees Planted So as to Form a Hedge' 'severity of View Obstruction' 'pruning Orders']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdictional Test for Trees Planted So as to Form a Hedge' 'severity of View Obstruction' '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 the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Hedge View Obstruction / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tree 1 and Tree 11 were planted so as to form part of Hedge 1 for the purposes of s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the three Cotoneasters were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether trees in Hedge 1 rose to a height of at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the obstruction of the applicants' views was severe enough to justify orders under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether pruning orders should be made requiring annual pruning to a height of 2 metres.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because Tree 1, Tree 11 and the Cotoneasters did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that they were planted so as to form a hedge, and the remaining trees in Hedge 1 did not cause severe view obstruction warranting orders. Extensive water views remained from the applicants' deck, views through the dwelling were only partly affected after pruning, and much obstruction through the side windows was caused by Tree 1 and Tree 11, over which the Court found it had no jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']