Brandt v Shanahan [2020] NSWLEC 1690

Brandt v Shanahan [2020] NSWLEC 1690

The row of about 65 Juniper trees was planted in a linear form along the boundary, with canopies meeting or close together and most trees exceeding 2.5 metres, so it formed a hedge to which Pt 2A applied. From the applicant's living and kitchen areas, a relatively narrow distant rural view to the east south-east was severely obstructed by part of that hedge. After considering the matters in s 14F and balancing the applicant's interest against the respondents' privacy, landscape amenity and other benefits of the hedge, the Court held that pruning only a small continuous section of 12 Juniper trees to 2.10 metres would restore significant view benefit while retaining most hedge benefits and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a High Hedge / Principal Judgment and Final Orders After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; pruning and ongoing maintenance orders made against the respondents at their expense.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'balancing of Interests Before Making Orders' 'pruning and Maintenance Orders']
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'balancing of Interests Before Making Orders' 'pruning and Maintenance 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 Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a High Hedge / Principal Judgment and Final Orders After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Juniper trees formed a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the hedge severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the applicant made reasonable efforts to reach agreement with the respondents.' "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction remedied outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees." 'Whether future view obstruction by other trees or specimen trees could be considered under Pt 2A.']

Ratio Decidendi

The row of about 65 Juniper trees was planted in a linear form along the boundary, with canopies meeting or close together and most trees exceeding 2.5 metres, so it formed a hedge to which Pt 2A applied. From the applicant's living and kitchen areas, a relatively narrow distant rural view to the east south-east was severely obstructed by part of that hedge. After considering the matters in s 14F and balancing the applicant's interest against the respondents' privacy, landscape amenity and other benefits of the hedge, the Court held that pruning only a small continuous section of 12 Juniper trees to 2.10 metres would restore significant view benefit while retaining most hedge benefits and...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; pruning and ongoing maintenance orders made against the respondents at their expense.

Orders

  • ["Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall prune a continuous row of 12 Juniper trees, comprising a section of their hedge, so that none of these 12 trees exceed a height of 2.10 metres above their current ground level. The trunk base of the Juniper tree at the northern...