Wood v Bergman [2011] NSWLEC 1068

Wood v Bergman [2011] NSWLEC 1068

Although the palms caused some obstruction, particularly from Deck 2, the obstruction was not severe: the palms obscured only about 15-20% of the wider view from Deck 2 and less than 5% of the panoramic view from Deck 3, and the Court saw nothing on site that made the filtered view a severe obstruction. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied, the Court could not make an order under Part 2A.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction From a Dwelling' 'neighbouring Trees']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment' 'property'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction From a Dwelling' 'neighbouring Trees']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees were 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge, rising to a height of at least 2.5 m and located on appropriately zoned land under s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing a view from a dwelling situated on the applicant's land under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the palms caused some obstruction, particularly from Deck 2, the obstruction was not severe: the palms obscured only about 15-20% of the wider view from Deck 2 and less than 5% of the panoramic view from Deck 3, and the Court saw nothing on site that made the filtered view a severe obstruction. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied, the Court could not make an order under Part 2A.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']