Aplin v Quinlan [2024] NSWLEC 1845

Aplin v Quinlan [2024] NSWLEC 1845

The application was refused because the obstruction caused by the trees was found to be moderate rather than severe, as is required by s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees Act. Therefore, the Court could not make the orders sought.

Parties
Applicant: Ian Aplin; Respondent: Paul Quinlan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 a / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trees Disputes Between Neighbours, Obstruction of Views, Orders Relating to Hedges
Environment and Planning Law Trees Disputes Between Neighbours Obstruction of Views Orders Relating to Hedges

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Aplin

Applicant

Paul Quinlan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 a / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees form a hedge within the meaning of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the trees severely obstruct a view
  3. 3 Whether the applicant made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the obstruction caused by the trees was found to be moderate rather than severe, as is required by s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees Act. Therefore, the Court could not make the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.
  • The exhibits are returned other than Exhibit A.