Lord v Grech; Brooke v Grech [2015] NSWLEC 1190

Lord v Grech; Brooke v Grech [2015] NSWLEC 1190

The fourteen Cypress trees formed a dense wall-like hedge near the boundary, already causing complete and severe obstruction of sunlight to north-facing bedroom glass doors in late May and denying the applicants reasonable amenity. The applicants' request for pruning was reasonable and outweighed the respondent's reasons for allowing the trees to grow naturally, particularly because the species is principally grown for hedging and would continue to increase its impact without pruning.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Applications Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing; Applications Heard Concurrently and Determined by Final Orders
Outcome
Both applications are upheld.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'pruning Orders' 'access for Tree Works']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'pruning Orders' 'access for Tree Works']

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 Applications Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing; Applications Heard Concurrently and Determined by Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Cypress trees were causing a severe obstruction of sunlight to windows of the applicants' dwellings under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether orders should be made requiring the respondent to prune and maintain the hedge, having regard to matters including the benefits of the trees and the privacy they provide.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fourteen Cypress trees formed a dense wall-like hedge near the boundary, already causing complete and severe obstruction of sunlight to north-facing bedroom glass doors in late May and denying the applicants reasonable amenity. The applicants' request for pruning was reasonable and outweighed the respondent's reasons for allowing the trees to grow naturally, particularly because the species is principally grown for hedging and would continue to increase its impact without pruning.

Court Disposition

Both applications are upheld.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld.' "The respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with appropriate insurance: to prune all 14 trees in the hedge to a height of 300 mm above the top of the adjacent fence along the common boundary; to prune all branches and foliage that...