Scott v Rooney [2020] NSWLEC 1078

Scott v Rooney [2020] NSWLEC 1078

The two Olive trees were not part of the Lilly Pilly hedge and did not form a separate hedge because they were separated, planted alongside rather than extending the hedge, and would not be perceived as part of the hedge. The Lilly Pilly hedge, however, was more than 2.5 metres tall and severely obstructed valuable water views from high-use areas of the applicants' dwelling. The applicants had made reasonable efforts to reach agreement, and the value of restoring the views outweighed reasons not to interfere with the trees. Orders for initial and ongoing pruning of the Lilly Pillies were justified, with pruning heights set to balance restoration of views against the respondent's amenity...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B (part 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Pruning and Maintenance Orders for Trees Alleged to Obstruct Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'whether Trees Form a Hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'pruning and Maintenance Orders' 'neighbouring Landowners']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment' 'property'] ['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'whether Trees Form a Hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'pruning and Maintenance Orders' 'neighbouring Landowners']

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 Application Under S 14 B (part 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Pruning and Maintenance Orders for Trees Alleged to Obstruct Views / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the two Olive trees formed part of the same hedge as the Lilly Pillies or formed a separate hedge for the purposes of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether the Lilly Pilly hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicants' dwelling." "Whether, after considering the matters in s 14F of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), the applicants' interests in pruning outweighed the respondent's interests in retaining the trees at greater height for privacy and amenity." 'What pruning and maintenance orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The two Olive trees were not part of the Lilly Pilly hedge and did not form a separate hedge because they were separated, planted alongside rather than extending the hedge, and would not be perceived as part of the hedge. The Lilly Pilly hedge, however, was more than 2.5 metres tall and severely obstructed valuable water views from high-use areas of the applicants' dwelling. The applicants had made reasonable efforts to reach agreement, and the value of restoring the views outweighed reasons not to interfere with the trees. Orders for initial and ongoing pruning of the Lilly Pillies were justified, with pruning heights set to balance restoration of views against the respondent's amenity...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['The application is granted.' 'Within 30 days of the date of the orders the respondent is to prune all Lilly Pilly trees in the hedge along the common boundary shared with the applicants.' 'The three trees at the western end of the hedge nearest the dwelling are to be pruned to the height of the top of the lower...