Koundouris v Kresner [2022] NSWLEC 1168

Koundouris v Kresner [2022] NSWLEC 1168

Although trees in Hedges 1, 2 and 3 caused a severe obstruction of a view from the applicants' first-floor dwelling, the statutory balance in s 14E(2)(b) was not satisfied. The applicants had not had access to the sought-after view during the period they owned the property, their own vegetation had obstructed and would again obstruct views under development consent conditions, and pruning would adversely affect the respondent's privacy and amenity. Those matters outweighed the applicants' interest in removing the obstruction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application was refused.
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'privacy Screening' 'part 2 a Trees Act Application']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'privacy Screening' 'part 2 a Trees Act Application']

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 Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's hedges severely obstructed a view from a dwelling on the applicants' land within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the severity and nature of any obstruction meant the applicants' interest in removal, remedy or restraint outweighed other matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b)." 'Whether the applicants had previously enjoyed the sought-after view during their ownership of the property.' "Whether pruning orders would unacceptably affect the respondent's privacy and amenity."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although trees in Hedges 1, 2 and 3 caused a severe obstruction of a view from the applicants' first-floor dwelling, the statutory balance in s 14E(2)(b) was not satisfied. The applicants had not had access to the sought-after view during the period they owned the property, their own vegetation had obstructed and would again obstruct views under development consent conditions, and pruning would adversely affect the respondent's privacy and amenity. Those matters outweighed the applicants' interest in removing the obstruction.

Court Disposition

The application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']