Ingram v Sebel [2011] NSWLEC 1010

Ingram v Sebel [2011] NSWLEC 1010

The Court upheld the application in part because the 11 Paperbarks and the Cypress formed a hedge exceeding 2.5 m and substantially blocked the south-westerly view from the first-floor balcony adjoining the living room, satisfying s 14E(2)(a)(ii) for that location. The lopped Paperbarks, particularly Trees 1-10, most severely obstructed the view and had no practical pruning option that would restore views while maintaining reasonable health, so their removal and height-limited replacement planting were justified. Tree 11 and the Cypress did not warrant removal because their obstruction was less severe and they provided shade, but selective pruning and thinning was appropriate to balance...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 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.
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of a View' 'consent Orders' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of a View' 'consent Orders' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning']

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 11 Paperbarks and the Cypress were planted so as to form a hedge and rose to a height of at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1).' "Whether the trees severely obstructed any view from the applicant's dwelling for the purposes of ss 14B, 14D and 14E." "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." 'What orders could properly be made, including whether the proposed consent orders should be adopted with amendments.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the application in part because the 11 Paperbarks and the Cypress formed a hedge exceeding 2.5 m and substantially blocked the south-westerly view from the first-floor balcony adjoining the living room, satisfying s 14E(2)(a)(ii) for that location. The lopped Paperbarks, particularly Trees 1-10, most severely obstructed the view and had no practical pruning option that would restore views while maintaining reasonable health, so their removal and height-limited replacement planting were justified. Tree 11 and the Cypress did not warrant removal because their obstruction was less severe and they provided shade, but selective pruning and thinning was appropriate to balance...

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent shall remove the Paperbarks within 28 days after the date of the Orders of the Court.' "The Respondent shall, within 28 days after the date of the Orders of the Court referred to in order 2, prune the Cypress, Cupressus macrocarpa 'cv' (referred to in the Application as T12) by selectively thin...