Peters vs Thomas [2018] NSWLEC 1205

Peters vs Thomas [2018] NSWLEC 1205

The bamboo screen satisfied s 14A(1) and severely obstructed sunlight to the applicant's dining room window W1, which could be considered a living room window, because it would receive less than 3 hours of sunlight for at least 50% of its area on 22 June between 9am and 3pm. Considering the matters in s 14F, appropriate pruning would not materially reduce the respondents' privacy and would remediate the severe obstruction, so orders maintaining the hedge at the agreed height were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Final Orders
Outcome
The application is upheld.
Legal Topics
['bamboo Hedge' 'overshadowing' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'neighbouring Land']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['bamboo Hedge' 'overshadowing' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'neighbouring Land']

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 Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bamboo screen was a group of 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge and rising to a height of at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to a window of a dwelling situated on the applicant's land under s 14E(2)(a)(i) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'What pruning and maintenance orders should be made for the bamboo hedge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bamboo screen satisfied s 14A(1) and severely obstructed sunlight to the applicant's dining room window W1, which could be considered a living room window, because it would receive less than 3 hours of sunlight for at least 50% of its area on 22 June between 9am and 3pm. Considering the matters in s 14F, appropriate pruning would not materially reduce the respondents' privacy and would remediate the severe obstruction, so orders maintaining the hedge at the agreed height were warranted.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld.

Orders

  • ["The respondents are to maintain the Bamboo hedge along their rear boundary, for the life of the hedge, at a height of approximately 2.6m, measured from above the fence, immediately adjacent to the shed in the applicant's car port area as indicated in Annexure A." 'The hedge is to be trimmed within three weeks of...