Ham v Hawkins [2024] NSWLEC 1462

Ham v Hawkins [2024] NSWLEC 1462

The application was refused because the applicant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondents' trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge as required by s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006. The Fig tree was self-sown and long established, T2 was below 2.5 metres, only T3 exceeded 2.5 metres once T1 was excluded, and there was no evidence that the Strelitzia nicolai clump was planted so as to form a hedge. As s 14A(1) was not met, Pt 2A did not apply and the Court had no power to make orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Application Under S 14 B of Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 A' 'whether Trees Were Planted So as to Form a Hedge']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 A' 'whether Trees Were Planted So as to Form a Hedge']

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 S 14 B of Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' trees formed a hedge for the purpose of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the trees caused a severe obstruction of views from, or sunlight to a window of, the applicant's dwelling." 'Whether the Court had power to make orders under Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondents' trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge as required by s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006. The Fig tree was self-sown and long established, T2 was below 2.5 metres, only T3 exceeded 2.5 metres once T1 was excluded, and there was no evidence that the Strelitzia nicolai clump was planted so as to form a hedge. As s 14A(1) was not met, Pt 2A did not apply and the Court had no power to make orders.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']