Marshall v Kremnizer [2017] NSWLEC 1029

Marshall v Kremnizer [2017] NSWLEC 1029

The respondent's property does not share a common boundary with the applicant's property and therefore is not adjoining land under the Trees Act. In any event, the Kremnizer trees do not severely obstruct the applicant's views from her dwelling as per the statutory threshold; consequently, the court has no jurisdiction to make orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['trees and Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'adjoining Land Definition' 'jurisdiction Under Trees Act']
['environment' 'property'] ['trees and Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'adjoining Land Definition' 'jurisdiction Under Trees Act']

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 S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's property is adjoining land under the Trees Act" "Whether the trees severely obstruct the applicant's view as required under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's property does not share a common boundary with the applicant's property and therefore is not adjoining land under the Trees Act. In any event, the Kremnizer trees do not severely obstruct the applicant's views from her dwelling as per the statutory threshold; consequently, the court has no jurisdiction to make orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application seeking pruning orders is dismissed.']