Constantinou & anor v Luxford-Pearson [2016] NSWLEC 1496

Constantinou & anor v Luxford-Pearson [2016] NSWLEC 1496

Because the hedge had been pruned before the hearing, the Court was satisfied there could be no severe obstruction of sunlight to windows of the applicants' dwelling. Section 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied, so the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Consent Orders Hearing by Telephone
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'pruning of Trees Before Hearing' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'pruning of Trees Before Hearing' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Consent Orders Hearing by Telephone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Leyland Cypress hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(i)." "Whether the Court's jurisdiction to make orders under Part 2A was engaged."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the hedge had been pruned before the hearing, the Court was satisfied there could be no severe obstruction of sunlight to windows of the applicants' dwelling. Section 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied, so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']