Coyle v Trevitt; Smith v Trevitt [2020] NSWLEC 1538

Coyle v Trevitt; Smith v Trevitt [2020] NSWLEC 1538

The Court refused both applications because only the eight hakeas were planted so as to form a hedge within Pt 2A of the Trees Act, the other trees were not shown to have been planted for that purpose or were likely self-sown, and the hakeas did not severely obstruct a view from either applicants' dwelling. The Court therefore lacked a basis to make the pruning orders sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Applications Pursuant to S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Orders to Prune Trees / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Both applications refused.
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'adjoining Land' 'jurisdiction Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw)']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court' 'property'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'adjoining Land' 'jurisdiction Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw)']

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 Applications Pursuant to S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Orders to Prune Trees / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the properties are adjoining for the purposes of s 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' 'Whether the trees were planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether the hedge trees severely obstruct a view from the applicants' dwellings." "Whether there was a basis for orders requiring pruning and maintenance of the respondent's trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused both applications because only the eight hakeas were planted so as to form a hedge within Pt 2A of the Trees Act, the other trees were not shown to have been planted for that purpose or were likely self-sown, and the hakeas did not severely obstruct a view from either applicants' dwelling. The Court therefore lacked a basis to make the pruning orders sought.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings 2019/403102: The application is refused.' 'Proceedings 2020/39033: The application is refused.']