Simpson & anor v Wanasawage [2017] NSWLEC 1758

Simpson & anor v Wanasawage [2017] NSWLEC 1758

The Court accepted that the applicants' north-facing windows, particularly the living room used most by the applicants, were shaded during winter afternoons and that the obstruction of sunlight by the trees was severe. The Court found that the landscape and privacy contributions of the trees did not outweigh the benefit to the applicants of restoring sunlight, but that pruning the first 12 trees to no more than 2 metres above the boundary fence, rather than all trees to 1.5 metres, would sufficiently restore solar access while minimising the burden on the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Neighbouring Hedge Obstructing Sunlight / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
The application is upheld.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'cypress Trees' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'tree Pruning Orders']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['hedge' 'cypress Trees' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'tree Pruning 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Neighbouring Hedge Obstructing Sunlight / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the cypress trees on adjoining land were planted as a hedge and severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicants' dwelling." "What pruning or other orders should be made to restore the applicants' access to sunlight while minimising the burden on the respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted that the applicants' north-facing windows, particularly the living room used most by the applicants, were shaded during winter afternoons and that the obstruction of sunlight by the trees was severe. The Court found that the landscape and privacy contributions of the trees did not outweigh the benefit to the applicants of restoring sunlight, but that pruning the first 12 trees to no more than 2 metres above the boundary fence, rather than all trees to 1.5 metres, would sufficiently restore solar access while minimising the burden on the respondent.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld.' "Within 60 days of the date of these orders, and then annually within two weeks of the anniversary of the date of these orders, the respondent is to engage a suitably experienced gardener or arborist, with appropriate insurances, to prune the first 12 trees (beginning at the end closest...