Haddan v Castles [2012] NSWLEC 1137

Haddan v Castles [2012] NSWLEC 1137

All three identified hedges satisfied the jurisdictional requirements in s 14A(1), but Hedge 1 did not obstruct a water view and the claim concerning viewing point 3 was not made out. Hedge 2 severely obstructed the view from viewing point 2, satisfying s 14E(2)(a)(ii). After balancing the matters in s 14F, removal of Hedge 2 was warranted because it caused the greatest obstruction to the view from V2, whereas the benefits of Hedge 3, including amenity, privacy, streetscape contribution and plant health considerations, outweighed the loss of views.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; removal of one hedge ordered.
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'tree Pruning and Removal' 'view Sharing' "balancing Applicant's View Interests Against Amenity and Other Interests"]
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'tree Pruning and Removal' 'view Sharing' "balancing Applicant's View Interests Against Amenity and Other Interests"]

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the identified groups of trees were hedges for the purpose of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether any hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." "Whether the applicant's interest in removing or remedying the obstruction outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F."]

Ratio Decidendi

All three identified hedges satisfied the jurisdictional requirements in s 14A(1), but Hedge 1 did not obstruct a water view and the claim concerning viewing point 3 was not made out. Hedge 2 severely obstructed the view from viewing point 2, satisfying s 14E(2)(a)(ii). After balancing the matters in s 14F, removal of Hedge 2 was warranted because it caused the greatest obstruction to the view from V2, whereas the benefits of Hedge 3, including amenity, privacy, streetscape contribution and plant health considerations, outweighed the loss of views.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; removal of one hedge ordered.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'Within 90 days of the date of these Orders, the respondents are to remove hedge 2, the clump of bamboo outside the fence on the southwestern corner of their property. Any replacement planting must be maintained to fence height.' 'The application with respect to hedges 1 and 3,...