Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334

Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334

The hedges obstructed some ordinary suburban views and cast shadows on some windows, but the obstruction was not severe within the meaning of s 14E. The relevant views were ordinary residential landscape views and the view loss was assessed as minor to moderate at its highest. The principal living room windows received at least three hours of sunlight on 22 June, comparable with usual minimum council development standards, and other affected windows had lower priority uses. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction to order interference with the hedges, and in any event the requested reduction to 2.5-3m was unreasonable for restoring views.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 14 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedges on Adjoining Land Allegedly Obstructing Sunlight and Views / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
['hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'notice of Application' 'court Jurisdiction to Make Orders']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'obstruction of Views From a Dwelling' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'notice of Application' 'court Jurisdiction to Make Orders']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Hedges on Adjoining Land Allegedly Obstructing Sunlight and Views / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' hedges severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the respondents' hedges severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(i) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the applicant complied with the notice requirement in s 14C(1) and made a reasonable effort to reach agreement under s 14E(1)(a).' "Whether the applicant's interest in having any obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of interfering with the hedges."]

Ratio Decidendi

The hedges obstructed some ordinary suburban views and cast shadows on some windows, but the obstruction was not severe within the meaning of s 14E. The relevant views were ordinary residential landscape views and the view loss was assessed as minor to moderate at its highest. The principal living room windows received at least three hours of sunlight on 22 June, comparable with usual minimum council development standards, and other affected windows had lower priority uses. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction to order interference with the hedges, and in any event the requested reduction to 2.5-3m was unreasonable for restoring views.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • ['The application in its entirety is dismissed.']