Grady v St Vincent & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1202

Grady v St Vincent & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1202

The Court was not satisfied that any nominated tree met s 10(2): there was no evidence that roots were likely to damage pipes in the near future, no evidence or observed defects showing the trees were likely to injure any person, and annoyance from overhanging branches or leaf fall did not establish the statutory threshold. For Part 2A, only the row of Pittosporums, excluding Tree 6, was accepted as a hedge; the Act did not apply to sunlight to gardens, and the evidence did not establish severe obstruction of sunlight to the kitchen window or of the claimed view at the time of hearing, especially after pruning. The application was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['potential Damage to Property' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'hedge Obstruction of Sunlight' 'hedge Obstruction of Views' 'overhanging Branches' 'leaf Fall']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['potential Damage to Property' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'hedge Obstruction of Sunlight' 'hedge Obstruction of Views' 'overhanging Branches' 'leaf Fall']

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 the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether any nominated tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether any nominated tree is likely to cause injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the respondents' trees are planted so as to form a hedge for Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the hedge is severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(i)." "Whether the hedge is severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that any nominated tree met s 10(2): there was no evidence that roots were likely to damage pipes in the near future, no evidence or observed defects showing the trees were likely to injure any person, and annoyance from overhanging branches or leaf fall did not establish the statutory threshold. For Part 2A, only the row of Pittosporums, excluding Tree 6, was accepted as a hedge; the Act did not apply to sunlight to gardens, and the evidence did not establish severe obstruction of sunlight to the kitchen window or of the claimed view at the time of hearing, especially after pruning. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']