Voeten & anor v Adams [2011] NSWLEC 1106

Voeten & anor v Adams [2011] NSWLEC 1106

Although the two groups of trees satisfied s 14A(1) as hedges, the Court was not satisfied under s 14E(2)(a)(i) that either hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicants' dwelling. The Court found that hedge 2 did not obstruct sunlight to W1 or W2 and any impact on W3 was not severe; W2 and W3 were of lesser significance; and, as to W1, the applicants' shadow diagrams did not properly depict the actual circumstances of the trees or site. On the site inspection, following pruning, the observed obstruction could not be described as severe. Because the statutory threshold was not met, no order interfering with the trees could be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Severe Obstruction of Sunlight to Windows by Hedge Trees on Adjoining Land / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'pruning and Maintenance of Trees' 'trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Part 2 A']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'pruning and Maintenance of Trees' 'trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 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

Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Alleged Severe Obstruction of Sunlight to Windows by Hedge Trees on Adjoining Land / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the groups of trees were planted so as to form hedges and rose to a height of at least 2.5 metres within s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees severely obstructed sunlight to windows W1, W2 or W3 of the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(i)." "Whether the applicants' interest in having any obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the two groups of trees satisfied s 14A(1) as hedges, the Court was not satisfied under s 14E(2)(a)(i) that either hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicants' dwelling. The Court found that hedge 2 did not obstruct sunlight to W1 or W2 and any impact on W3 was not severe; W2 and W3 were of lesser significance; and, as to W1, the applicants' shadow diagrams did not properly depict the actual circumstances of the trees or site. On the site inspection, following pruning, the observed obstruction could not be described as severe. Because the statutory threshold was not met, no order interfering with the trees could be made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']