Bishop v Safro [2011] NSWLEC 1269

Bishop v Safro [2011] NSWLEC 1269

The application for sunlight obstruction fails because the primary loss of sunlight is due to the respondent's dwelling, and the hedge does not severely obstruct direct sunlight as required by the Act. The application for loss of view is upheld in part because the hedge (particularly trees 1-5) severely obstructs significant water views from the applicant's main living area and deck; the balance of interests justifies partial remedy through pruning some trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Class 2 Jurisdiction / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld in part; application as to sunlight dismissed; partial orders for pruning granted
Legal Topics
['trees – Neighbours' 'obstruction of View' 'obstruction of Sunlight']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['trees – Neighbours' 'obstruction of View' 'obstruction of Sunlight']

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 Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Class 2 Jurisdiction / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hedge of Leyland Cypress trees severely obstructs sunlight to windows of applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(i) of the Act" "Whether the hedge severely obstructs views from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Act" 'Whether the balance of interests under s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F favours remedial orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for sunlight obstruction fails because the primary loss of sunlight is due to the respondent's dwelling, and the hedge does not severely obstruct direct sunlight as required by the Act. The application for loss of view is upheld in part because the hedge (particularly trees 1-5) severely obstructs significant water views from the applicant's main living area and deck; the balance of interests justifies partial remedy through pruning some trees.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; application as to sunlight dismissed; partial orders for pruning granted

Orders

  • ['Respondent to organise and pay for pruning all Leyland Cypress trees in the planter box above the clothesline courtyard to 1.3m above the top of the masonry wall within 30 days;' "Thereafter, at respondent's cost, that part of the hedge is to be maintained at a maximum of 1.6m above the wall;" 'Application as to...