Lee v Stapleton [2022] NSWLEC 1430

Lee v Stapleton [2022] NSWLEC 1430

The 25 Xylosma trees formed a hedge and the notice and reasonable effort requirements were sufficiently satisfied, but the hedge did not severely obstruct sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling or severely obstruct views from the applicant's dwelling. Any obstruction caused by the hedge was no greater than minor, and the applicant could not obtain orders to gain sunlight or views that were not available when she occupied the property. Because s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was not engaged, the Court had no jurisdiction to make the pruning orders sought, and the application was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight to a Window' 'obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'notice of Lodgement of Application' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'jurisdiction to Make Orders Under the Trees Act']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight to a Window' 'obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'notice of Lodgement of Application' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'jurisdiction to Make Orders Under the Trees Act']

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 Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 25 Xylosma trees formed a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the applicant gave sufficient notice of the lodging of the application under s 14C of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents under s 14E(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(i) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the hedge was severely obstructing views from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make the pruning orders sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 25 Xylosma trees formed a hedge and the notice and reasonable effort requirements were sufficiently satisfied, but the hedge did not severely obstruct sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling or severely obstruct views from the applicant's dwelling. Any obstruction caused by the hedge was no greater than minor, and the applicant could not obtain orders to gain sunlight or views that were not available when she occupied the property. Because s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was not engaged, the Court had no jurisdiction to make the pruning orders sought, and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']