Coghlan v Poppleton [2022] NSWLEC 1745

Coghlan v Poppleton [2022] NSWLEC 1745

Although the Oleanders formed a hedge and the preliminary requirements concerning efforts to resolve the dispute and notice were satisfied, the hedge had been heavily pruned before the hearing to between 3.4 and 4 metres high. At the hearing, broad ocean and district views from the Applicant's dwelling were available and any obstruction caused by the hedge was negligible. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied at the time of the hearing, the Court had no power to make orders and the application had to be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a High Hedge Allegedly Obstructing Views / Final Onsite Hearing and Extemporaneous Decision
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'pruning of Trees' 'privacy' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['land and Environment' 'tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property and Neighbour Disputes'] ['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'pruning of Trees' 'privacy' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 1 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a High Hedge Allegedly Obstructing Views / Final Onsite Hearing and Extemporaneous Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Nerium oleander trees formed a hedge to which Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied.' 'Whether the Applicant had made reasonable efforts to reach agreement and given notice of the application as required by the Trees Act.' "Whether, at the time of the hearing, the hedge was severely obstructing a view from the Applicant's dwelling." "If severe obstruction were established, whether the Applicant's interest in removal, remedy or restraint would outweigh matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Oleanders formed a hedge and the preliminary requirements concerning efforts to resolve the dispute and notice were satisfied, the hedge had been heavily pruned before the hearing to between 3.4 and 4 metres high. At the hearing, broad ocean and district views from the Applicant's dwelling were available and any obstruction caused by the hedge was negligible. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied at the time of the hearing, the Court had no power to make orders and the application had to be refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']