Lau v Miller; Karib v Miller; Eriksson v Miller [2013] NSWLEC 1212

Lau v Miller; Karib v Miller; Eriksson v Miller [2013] NSWLEC 1212

The Court found that the respondent’s trees do not severely obstruct views from the applicants’ dwellings at present; the applicants' concerns about potential future obstruction do not suffice for jurisdiction; applications regarding nuisance and risk require a different application under Part 2.

Parties
Applicant: Matthew Lau; Applicant: Francois Karib; Applicant: Trevor Eriksson; Respondent: Duncan Miller
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Hedges, Obstruction of Views
Property Law Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Hedges Obstruction of Views

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Lau

Applicant

Francois Karib

Applicant

Trevor Eriksson

Applicant

Duncan Miller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's trees are severely obstructing views from the applicants’ dwellings
  2. 2 Whether there is jurisdiction to make orders for potential future view obstruction
  3. 3 Whether allegations of nuisance and risk of damage or injury fall within the Court's jurisdiction under Part 2A

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent’s trees do not severely obstruct views from the applicants’ dwellings at present; the applicants' concerns about potential future obstruction do not suffice for jurisdiction; applications regarding nuisance and risk require a different application under Part 2.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.