Golchin v Turner [2013] NSWLEC 1138

Golchin v Turner [2013] NSWLEC 1138

The Brush Box trees T5, T6 and T7 and the Leyland Cypress trees T8 and T8A were trees to which Part 2A applied, but the Magnolia T4 was a single tree planted later and was not planted so as to form a hedge, so Part 2A did not apply to it. From the nominated viewing locations, the obstruction caused by trees to which Part 2A applied was negligible or minor and not severe. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied for any viewing location, the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders for intervention with the relevant trees, and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'part 2 a Jurisdictional Requirements']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'part 2 a Jurisdictional Requirements']

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 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied to the trees on the respondent's land, including whether the trees were planted so as to form a hedge and rose to at least 2.5 metres." "Whether trees to which Part 2A applied were severely obstructing views from the applicants' dwelling." "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders requiring pruning or other intervention with the respondent's trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Brush Box trees T5, T6 and T7 and the Leyland Cypress trees T8 and T8A were trees to which Part 2A applied, but the Magnolia T4 was a single tree planted later and was not planted so as to form a hedge, so Part 2A did not apply to it. From the nominated viewing locations, the obstruction caused by trees to which Part 2A applied was negligible or minor and not severe. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied for any viewing location, the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders for intervention with the relevant trees, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']