Singh & anor v Stanford [2014] NSWLEC 1014

Singh & anor v Stanford [2014] NSWLEC 1014

Only three of the trees (Duranta erecta, trees 4, 5, and 6) formed a hedge as required under s 14A(1)(a). These trees severely obstructed views but not sunlight. The loss of view justified remedial orders, balanced with the respondent's privacy, but only to a height of 4m.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part
Legal Topics
['trees and Hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'neighbour Disputes']

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

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees form a hedge within the meaning of s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'Whether the hedge severely obstructs sunlight to a window or views from a dwelling under s 14E(2)' 'Whether the balance of interests under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F favours making an order']

Ratio Decidendi

Only three of the trees (Duranta erecta, trees 4, 5, and 6) formed a hedge as required under s 14A(1)(a). These trees severely obstructed views but not sunlight. The loss of view justified remedial orders, balanced with the respondent's privacy, but only to a height of 4m.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part

Orders

  • ['Within 30 days, respondent to prune trees 4, 5, and 6 (Duranta erecta) to a height of 4m above ground, at her cost.' 'Applicants to provide reasonable access for this work on two working days notice if required.' 'Pruning work to be carried out annually each February for the life of the plants.']