Yeates & anor v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338

Yeates & anor v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338

The jurisdictional test in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was not satisfied because the bamboo was not severely obstructing the applicants' views when assessed from the totality of outlooks; thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to make the requested consent orders, and the application must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicants: M & J Yeates; Respondent: M Goff
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (severe Obstruction of Views) Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Hedge Obstruction, Tree Disputes, Obstruction of Views, Jurisdictional Tests for Consent Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M & J Yeates

Applicants

M Goff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute (severe Obstruction of Views) Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the bamboo (hedge) severely obstructs views from the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to make consent orders where the severity threshold is not met

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdictional test in s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was not satisfied because the bamboo was not severely obstructing the applicants' views when assessed from the totality of outlooks; thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to make the requested consent orders, and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.