Sheehy & anor v Jufferman & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1135

Sheehy & anor v Jufferman & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1135

The Waterhousia did not severely obstruct a view from the applicants' dwelling, so no orders could be made for that hedge. The Viburnums T1 and T2 and part of T3 severely obstructed an iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from the downstairs living area, and reducing them would restore that view without significant loss of privacy to the respondents. Pruning Viburnums T4-T7 would restore only partial, less iconic views while causing significant loss of privacy, and T8-T9 did not severely obstruct a view; therefore orders were justified only for T1-T2 and the part of T3 overhanging T2.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedge Obstruction of Views / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; pruning of part of the Viburnum hedge ordered and application to prune the Waterhousia hedge dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'pruning Orders' 'privacy and Amenity' 'view Sharing']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'pruning Orders' 'privacy and Amenity' 'view Sharing']

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 Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedge Obstruction of Views / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Waterhousia hedge satisfied the statutory basis for orders by severely obstructing a view from the applicants' dwelling." "Whether the Viburnum hedge, or part of it, severely obstructed views from the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether, after considering the matters in s 14F of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, the severity and nature of the view obstruction justified pruning orders having regard to the respondents' privacy and amenity."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Waterhousia did not severely obstruct a view from the applicants' dwelling, so no orders could be made for that hedge. The Viburnums T1 and T2 and part of T3 severely obstructed an iconic view of the Harbour Bridge from the downstairs living area, and reducing them would restore that view without significant loss of privacy to the respondents. Pruning Viburnums T4-T7 would restore only partial, less iconic views while causing significant loss of privacy, and T8-T9 did not severely obstruct a view; therefore orders were justified only for T1-T2 and the part of T3 overhanging T2.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; pruning of part of the Viburnum hedge ordered and application to prune the Waterhousia hedge dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application to prune the Waterhousia hedge is dismissed.' 'The application to prune the Viburnum hedge is upheld in part.' 'Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to prune trees T1-T2 and any part of T3 that overhangs T2 to a height of 2.0 m.' 'The respondents are to maintain trees...