Hardy v Fisher & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1013

Hardy v Fisher & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1013

The Court dismissed the application because the risks of damage or injury from the Mango, Blueberry Ash and Paperbarks did not satisfy s 10(2), lightning and bushfire risks were remote or insufficient, the Paperbarks were not shown to be planted so as to form a hedge under s 14A(1)(a), and the Lillypillies, although a hedge exceeding 2.5 metres, were not obstructing sunlight to any window of the applicant's property as required by s 14E(2)(a)(i).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 Part 2 and S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Sunlight' 'damage to Property From Trees' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge Obstruction of Sunlight' 'damage to Property From Trees' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 7 Part 2 and S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether trees on the respondents' land had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property or were likely to cause injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the Paperbarks formed a hedge within s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the Lillypillies were severely obstructing sunlight to a window of a dwelling on the applicant's land under s 14E(2)(a)(i) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because the risks of damage or injury from the Mango, Blueberry Ash and Paperbarks did not satisfy s 10(2), lightning and bushfire risks were remote or insufficient, the Paperbarks were not shown to be planted so as to form a hedge under s 14A(1)(a), and the Lillypillies, although a hedge exceeding 2.5 metres, were not obstructing sunlight to any window of the applicant's property as required by s 14E(2)(a)(i).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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