Ridley v The Owners Strata Plan No 60662 [2011] NSWLEC 1107

Ridley v The Owners Strata Plan No 60662 [2011] NSWLEC 1107

The palms met the s 14A(1) hedge requirement, but only trees 1 and 3 in Hedge 1 severely obstructed the applicant's iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from ground floor living areas. After considering the s 14F matters, the applicant's interest in removal of trees 1 and 3 outweighed the undesirability of disturbing those trees, while no sufficient basis existed to interfere with the remaining trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; two trees ordered for removal.
Legal Topics
['trees and Hedges' 'obstruction of Iconic View' 'view Sharing' 'removal of Palm Trees' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['environmental Law' 'property Law' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['trees and Hedges' 'obstruction of Iconic View' 'view Sharing' 'removal of Palm Trees' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the 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

Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the palm trees were planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F." 'What orders, if any, should be made in relation to the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The palms met the s 14A(1) hedge requirement, but only trees 1 and 3 in Hedge 1 severely obstructed the applicant's iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from ground floor living areas. After considering the s 14F matters, the applicant's interest in removal of trees 1 and 3 outweighed the undesirability of disturbing those trees, while no sufficient basis existed to interfere with the remaining trees.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; two trees ordered for removal.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'The respondent is to remove trees 1 and 3 as shown on the Proust & Gardner survey plan in Annexure A within 90 days of the date of these orders.' "The works are to be carried out at the respondent's cost." 'The exhibits except Exhibit C are retained.']