Hickey v Inman [2022] NSWLEC 1491

Hickey v Inman [2022] NSWLEC 1491

The applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the two Melaleuca trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge. They were planted at least 4m apart, on separate sides of a small rear yard and near different perpendicular boundaries, and the prior owners' evidence supported that they were planted as amenity trees for appearance, salt tolerance and shelter. Because s 14A(1)(a) was not met, the trees were not trees to which Pt 2A applied and the Court had no power to make the pruning orders sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Tree Dispute Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Final Hearing
Outcome
The application is refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 A' 'whether Two Trees Form a Hedge']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['high Hedges' 'view Obstruction' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under Pt 2 A' 'whether Two Trees Form a Hedge']

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 Tree Dispute Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the two Melaleuca trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purpose of s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied so that the Court could make orders concerning severe obstruction of views.' "If Pt 2A applied, whether the obstruction of views from the applicant's dwelling was severe and what balancing of interests would be required."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the two Melaleuca trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge. They were planted at least 4m apart, on separate sides of a small rear yard and near different perpendicular boundaries, and the prior owners' evidence supported that they were planted as amenity trees for appearance, salt tolerance and shelter. Because s 14A(1)(a) was not met, the trees were not trees to which Pt 2A applied and the Court had no power to make the pruning orders sought.

Court Disposition

The application is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']