Barnes v Loveridge; Unicomb v Loveridge [2016] NSWLEC 1108

Barnes v Loveridge; Unicomb v Loveridge [2016] NSWLEC 1108

The applicants failed to establish, by sufficient evidence, that the Kentia Palms severely obstruct sunlight (for Barnes) to the requisite window or severely obstruct views (for Unicomb) as required by s 14E(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Even if obstruction was found moderate to severe for views (Barnes), the Court found the balancing of interests did not justify making an order, having regard to the heritage value, planning documents, and the amenity available at purchase. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Final Orders; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'heritage Considerations']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'heritage Considerations']

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

Tree Dispute Application / Final Orders; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Kentia Palms constitute a hedge to which Part 2A applies' "Whether the trees are severely obstructing sunlight to a window or views from the applicants' dwellings under s 14E(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" "Whether the applicants' interests outweigh other relevant considerations under s 14F"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish, by sufficient evidence, that the Kentia Palms severely obstruct sunlight (for Barnes) to the requisite window or severely obstruct views (for Unicomb) as required by s 14E(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Even if obstruction was found moderate to severe for views (Barnes), the Court found the balancing of interests did not justify making an order, having regard to the heritage value, planning documents, and the amenity available at purchase. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • ['In matter 21137 of 2015, the application is dismissed. Exhibit 1 is returned.' 'In matter 21138 of 2015, the application is dismissed.']