Johnson & Ors v Angus & Anor [2012] NSWLEC 1207

Johnson & Ors v Angus & Anor [2012] NSWLEC 1207

Only the palms T2-T20 were found to form a hedge as required by s 14A(1) of the Act; the Turpentine (T1), being distinctly separate in age, appearance, and likely origin, was not part of a hedge. The palms were found to cause severe obstruction of high-value views from the applicants' property, meeting the threshold in s 14E(2), warranting remedial orders for removal of two trees and periodic pruning of others. The Court issued orders consistent with the parties' consent as it had jurisdiction only over the palms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute/neighbour Dispute / Final Orders After Hearing and Directions
Outcome
Application upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'obstruction of Views' 'definition of Hedge Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'obstruction of Views' 'definition of Hedge Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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

Tree Dispute/neighbour Dispute / Final Orders After Hearing and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the group of trees constitutes a 'hedge' under the Act" 'Whether the hedge or trees severely obstruct a view as required for jurisdiction' 'What remedial orders are appropriate under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

Ratio Decidendi

Only the palms T2-T20 were found to form a hedge as required by s 14A(1) of the Act; the Turpentine (T1), being distinctly separate in age, appearance, and likely origin, was not part of a hedge. The palms were found to cause severe obstruction of high-value views from the applicants' property, meeting the threshold in s 14E(2), warranting remedial orders for removal of two trees and periodic pruning of others. The Court issued orders consistent with the parties' consent as it had jurisdiction only over the palms.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'The directions made at the hearing of 4 June 2012 are vacated.' 'The applicants are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF Level 3) with appropriate insurance to remove T11 and the largest stem of T14 within 30 days of the date of these...