Liddell v Jones [2014] NSWLEC 1183

Liddell v Jones [2014] NSWLEC 1183

The Court found that only bamboo was planted so as to form a hedge; Tuckeroo trees were not part of the hedge. The bamboo, as currently maintained, does not cause a severe obstruction to views or sunlight. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements under Part 2A of the Trees Act are not engaged and no orders could be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Class 2 / Principal Judgment; Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight']

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

Tree Dispute Class 2 / Principal Judgment; Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Do the Tuckeroo trees form part of the hedge within the meaning of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006?' 'Is there a severe obstruction of a view caused by the hedge?' 'Is there a severe obstruction of sunlight caused by the hedge?' 'Does the jurisdictional requirement for severe obstruction exist at the time of hearing or at the time proceedings were commenced?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that only bamboo was planted so as to form a hedge; Tuckeroo trees were not part of the hedge. The bamboo, as currently maintained, does not cause a severe obstruction to views or sunlight. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements under Part 2A of the Trees Act are not engaged and no orders could be made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']