McMorrow v Rhodes & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1556

McMorrow v Rhodes & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1556

Although the bamboo was a hedge of trees to which Part 2A applied and severely obstructed the applicant's desired views, the views were partial, oblique, across a side boundary, from non-principal rooms, and were outweighed by other relevant matters including privacy, habitat and the character and location of the trees. Because s 14E(2)(b) was not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders other than dismissing the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['bamboo Hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'view Sharing' 'balancing of Interests Under Part 2 A']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['bamboo Hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'view Sharing' 'balancing of Interests Under Part 2 A']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bamboo was a hedge of trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' "Whether the bamboo was severely obstructing a view from a dwelling situated on the applicant's land." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the bamboo."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the bamboo was a hedge of trees to which Part 2A applied and severely obstructed the applicant's desired views, the views were partial, oblique, across a side boundary, from non-principal rooms, and were outweighed by other relevant matters including privacy, habitat and the character and location of the trees. Because s 14E(2)(b) was not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders other than dismissing the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']