Killick v Halliday [2014] NSWLEC 1112

Killick v Halliday [2014] NSWLEC 1112

The remaining Leyland Cypress and the Crepe Myrtle were not trees to which Part 2A applied because they were not a group of 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge: the Crepe Myrtle was a single specimen planted at least 50 years earlier, one of the two Leyland Cypress trees had been removed before hearing, and the remaining trees were different in form, spatially separated, and arranged so they would not ordinarily be perceived as forming a hedge. Because s 14A(1)(a) was not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to order intervention with the respondent's trees, and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders for Pruning and Subsequent Maintenance of Trees / Final Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'pruning Orders']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'pruning 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

Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders for Pruning and Subsequent Maintenance of Trees / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the remaining Leyland Cypress and Crepe Myrtle were a group of 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for pruning or intervention with the respondent's trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

The remaining Leyland Cypress and the Crepe Myrtle were not trees to which Part 2A applied because they were not a group of 2 or more trees planted so as to form a hedge: the Crepe Myrtle was a single specimen planted at least 50 years earlier, one of the two Leyland Cypress trees had been removed before hearing, and the remaining trees were different in form, spatially separated, and arranged so they would not ordinarily be perceived as forming a hedge. Because s 14A(1)(a) was not satisfied, the Court had no jurisdiction to order intervention with the respondent's trees, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']