Deans & anor v Silverthorn & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1523

Deans & anor v Silverthorn & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1523

None of the trees on the respondents' property alleged to obstruct the applicants' views and sunlight were trees to which Part 2A applied: some nominated trees were on council-owned or managed land, some pruned shrubs were below the 2.5m height threshold, and the remaining trees were not planted so as to form a hedge because of their wide spacing, diverse species, generally random arrangement and extended planting period. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter further and dismissed the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A' 'council Land Exclusion']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment Law'] ['hedge Obstruction' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 A' 'council Land Exclusion']

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 S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the nominated trees and shrubs were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' 'Whether two or more trees were planted so as to form a hedge and rose to a height of at least 2.5m above ground level.' "Whether trees located on land owned or managed by Bellingen Shire Council were beyond the Court's jurisdiction." 'Whether the Court could consider alleged severe obstruction of views and sunlight if the jurisdictional requirements were not met.']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the trees on the respondents' property alleged to obstruct the applicants' views and sunlight were trees to which Part 2A applied: some nominated trees were on council-owned or managed land, some pruned shrubs were below the 2.5m height threshold, and the remaining trees were not planted so as to form a hedge because of their wide spacing, diverse species, generally random arrangement and extended planting period. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter further and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']