Coleman v Scern; Dunn v Scern [2011] NSWLEC 1146

Coleman v Scern; Dunn v Scern [2011] NSWLEC 1146

The Court found that hedges on the respondent's property constituted 'trees' for purposes of the Act. Pruning of the southern and eastern boundary trees is required to restore severely obstructed views from 8 Pindari Avenue's living areas, balancing privacy and habitat concerns, but no intervention is warranted for northern boundary trees or for 10 Pindari Avenue, as jurisdictional and evidentiary requirements for severe obstruction and view sharing are not met.

Parties
Applicants: P & M Coleman; Applicants: J & A Dunn; Respondent: L Scern
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 (trees Disputes Between Neighbours) / Principal Judgment (final Orders)
Outcome
Application of J & A Dunn dismissed; Application of P & M Coleman granted to extent of specified pruning and ancillary orders.
Legal Topics
Hedges, Obstruction of Views, Privacy, Neighbour Disputes
Property Law Environmental Law Hedges Obstruction of Views Privacy Neighbour Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & M Coleman

Applicants

J & A Dunn

Applicants

L Scern

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 2 (trees Disputes Between Neighbours) / Principal Judgment (final Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hedges constitute 'trees' for purposes of s 14A(1) Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the vegetation severely obstructs views from applicant properties
  3. 3 Balancing privacy concerns with view restoration

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that hedges on the respondent's property constituted 'trees' for purposes of the Act. Pruning of the southern and eastern boundary trees is required to restore severely obstructed views from 8 Pindari Avenue's living areas, balancing privacy and habitat concerns, but no intervention is warranted for northern boundary trees or for 10 Pindari Avenue, as jurisdictional and evidentiary requirements for severe obstruction and view sharing are not met.

Court Disposition

Application of J & A Dunn dismissed; Application of P & M Coleman granted to extent of specified pruning and ancillary orders.

Orders

  • Respondent to prune four Cypress trees on southern boundary to maximum 4.5 m within thirty days.
  • Respondent to maintain Cypress trees to maximum 4.7 m thereafter.