Holland v Bell [2017] NSWLEC 1322

Holland v Bell [2017] NSWLEC 1322

The bamboo was directly next door, created a tall dense screen similar to a wall, severely affected views from the Hollands' dwelling and severely affected enjoyment of their property; the obstructed views were available when the Hollands purchased the property. The Court's jurisdiction under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was enlivened, and a balanced pruning regime could restore views while retaining sufficient privacy for Mr Bell and accepting that the bamboo had previously regrown after cutting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Bamboo Obstructing Views / Extemporaneous Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
The application is upheld.
Legal Topics
['bamboo Hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'privacy' 'orders for Pruning']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['bamboo Hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'privacy' 'orders for Pruning']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Bamboo Obstructing Views / Extemporaneous Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's bamboo hedge was severely obstructing a view from a dwelling situated on the applicant's land under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the applicant's interest in restoring the view should be balanced against the respondent's privacy interests and the ongoing health of the bamboo under s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'What pruning orders, if any, should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bamboo was directly next door, created a tall dense screen similar to a wall, severely affected views from the Hollands' dwelling and severely affected enjoyment of their property; the obstructed views were available when the Hollands purchased the property. The Court's jurisdiction under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was enlivened, and a balanced pruning regime could restore views while retaining sufficient privacy for Mr Bell and accepting that the bamboo had previously regrown after cutting.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld.

Orders

  • ['Within 30 days of the date of the orders the respondent is to prune the bamboo along his southern boundary so that it is no taller than 2 metres above the top of the fence for the 2-metre section from its western end.' 'Within 30 days of the date of the orders the respondent is to prune the bamboo along his...