Smyth v Hayim [2012] NSWLEC 1318
Although the row of bamboo was a hedge for the purpose of the Act and it obstructed sunlight to the applicant's windows, the Court was not satisfied that the obstruction was severe. Because s 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied, the Court had no power to order intervention with the bamboo, and the application was dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning High Hedges Obstructing Sunlight / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['high Hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'bamboo Hedge' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning High Hedges Obstructing Sunlight / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the row of bamboo was a hedge for the purpose of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the bamboo severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the Court's power to make orders under Part 2A was enlivened."]
Ratio Decidendi
Although the row of bamboo was a hedge for the purpose of the Act and it obstructed sunlight to the applicant's windows, the Court was not satisfied that the obstruction was severe. Because s 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied, the Court had no power to order intervention with the bamboo, and the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment