Mayes v Keene [2016] NSWLEC 1604

Mayes v Keene [2016] NSWLEC 1604

Although the Cypress trees did severely obstruct sunlight to the applicant's windows, the applicant constructed his dwelling after the trees had long existed and placed it in a location constrained by site circumstances; balancing all interests, the applicant's interest in removing the obstruction did not outweigh the undesirability of interfering with the trees. The requirements under s 14E(2)(b) were not satisfied.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Russell Mayes; Respondent: Mrs Marjorie Keene
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees, Obstruction of Sunlight, Obstruction of Views, Neighbour Disputes, Hedges
Land and Environment Property Law Trees Obstruction of Sunlight Obstruction of Views Neighbour Disputes Hedges

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Russell Mayes

Applicant

Mrs Marjorie Keene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hedge/severe obstruction of sunlight and/or views from the applicant's dwelling satisfies jurisdictional requirements for relief under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Part 2A
  2. 2 Whether balancing the interests under s 14E(2)(b) favours making an order for the removal or pruning of the trees

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Cypress trees did severely obstruct sunlight to the applicant's windows, the applicant constructed his dwelling after the trees had long existed and placed it in a location constrained by site circumstances; balancing all interests, the applicant's interest in removing the obstruction did not outweigh the undesirability of interfering with the trees. The requirements under s 14E(2)(b) were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.