Cavalier v Young [2011] NSWLEC 1080

Cavalier v Young [2011] NSWLEC 1080

Although the respondent's diagonally rear property was adjoining land and trees 1, 6 and 7 were treated, at the applicant's highest, as a hedge, trees 8 and 9 did not satisfy s 14A(1). The Court was not satisfied that trees 1, 6 and 7 severely obstructed sunlight to windows 1 and 2, or that this group by itself severely obstructed sunlight to windows 3 and 4 as required by s 14E(2)(a)(i), given other trees and site conditions. The jurisdictional tests were therefore not met and the Court could not make the pruning orders sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Obstruction of Sunlight by Neighbouring Trees / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'adjoining Land' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'pruning of Trees']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'adjoining Land' 'jurisdictional Requirements Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'pruning of Trees']

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 3 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Obstruction of Sunlight by Neighbouring Trees / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's land was adjoining land for the purposes of s 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the remaining trees formed a hedge within s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(i)." "If severe obstruction was established, whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's diagonally rear property was adjoining land and trees 1, 6 and 7 were treated, at the applicant's highest, as a hedge, trees 8 and 9 did not satisfy s 14A(1). The Court was not satisfied that trees 1, 6 and 7 severely obstructed sunlight to windows 1 and 2, or that this group by itself severely obstructed sunlight to windows 3 and 4 as required by s 14E(2)(a)(i), given other trees and site conditions. The jurisdictional tests were therefore not met and the Court could not make the pruning orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']