Alameddine v Jones [2013] NSWLEC 1021

Alameddine v Jones [2013] NSWLEC 1021

The hedge of 21 Lilly Pilly trees meets the statutory definition, and trees T1 to T10 cause a severe view obstruction from key dwelling areas under the Act. Annual pruning at specified heights restores significant lost views without unduly impacting privacy, balancing competing interests as required under the legislative scheme.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'pruning Order' 'trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 / Principal Judgment

  1. 1 ['Do the 21 Lilly Pilly trees form a hedge within the meaning of the legislative test?' "Do the trees severely obstruct views from the applicant's dwelling as required by the Act?" "If so, what orders (if any) should be made to balance restoration of views and the respondents' privacy interests?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The hedge of 21 Lilly Pilly trees meets the statutory definition, and trees T1 to T10 cause a severe view obstruction from key dwelling areas under the Act. Annual pruning at specified heights restores significant lost views without unduly impacting privacy, balancing competing interests as required under the legislative scheme.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part

Orders

  • ['During June each year commencing 2013, respondents to prune, or engage suitable practitioner to prune, the 21 Lilly Pilly trees forming the hedge as follows:—' 'Reduce trees along upper fence section to no greater than 0.7 metres above aluminium screen.' 'Reduce trees along lower fence section to no greater than...