Stubbs v Lipar [2024] NSWLEC 1780

Stubbs v Lipar [2024] NSWLEC 1780

The applicant failed to establish that any of the trees or bamboo were causing, had caused, or were likely to cause damage to property or injury to a person in the near future within the meaning of s 10(2) of the Trees Act. Further, the front yard trees were not planted as a hedge under s 14A(1), and while the bamboo was found to be a hedge, it was not causing, nor was it likely to soon cause, severe obstruction of sunlight or views under s 14E(2)(a). Thus, the statutory criteria were not satisfied and both applications were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Matthew John Stubbs; First Respondent: Sarah Lipar; Second Respondent: Steven Lipar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute – Class 2 (land and Environment Court) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Tree Disputes, Neighbourhood Disputes, Obstruction of Sunlight/views, Hedges, Property Damage
Environmental Law Property Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Tree Disputes Neighbourhood Disputes Obstruction of Sunlight/views Hedges Property Damage

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew John Stubbs

Applicant

Sarah Lipar

First Respondent

Steven Lipar

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute – Class 2 (land and Environment Court) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' trees or bamboo are likely to cause damage to the applicant’s property in the near future within the meaning of Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 s 10(2)
  2. 2 Whether the trees or bamboo present a risk of injury to any person under s 10(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether any group of trees forms a hedge under s 14A(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that any of the trees or bamboo were causing, had caused, or were likely to cause damage to property or injury to a person in the near future within the meaning of s 10(2) of the Trees Act. Further, the front yard trees were not planted as a hedge under s 14A(1), and while the bamboo was found to be a hedge, it was not causing, nor was it likely to soon cause, severe obstruction of sunlight or views under s 14E(2)(a). Thus, the statutory criteria were not satisfied and both applications were refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.