Salisbury v Harrison & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1069

Salisbury v Harrison & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1069

The Court found that the Viburnum hedge did not meet the height requirement under s 14A(1)(b), and that although the Pears met this threshold, they did not severely obstruct a view from the applicant's dwelling as required by s 14E(2)(a)(ii). Without a severe obstruction, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

Parties
Applicant: J Salisbury; Respondents: D & A Harrison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees and Hedgerows, Obstruction of View, Jurisdictional Requirements
Environmental Law Trees and Hedgerows Obstruction of View Jurisdictional Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Salisbury

Applicant

D & A Harrison

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pear trees and Viburnum hedge constitute hedges under the Act
  2. 2 Whether the trees rise to the requisite height under s 14A(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the trees are severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling as required by s 14E(2)(a)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Viburnum hedge did not meet the height requirement under s 14A(1)(b), and that although the Pears met this threshold, they did not severely obstruct a view from the applicant's dwelling as required by s 14E(2)(a)(ii). Without a severe obstruction, the Court lacked jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.