Karam v Meredith [2012] NSWLEC 1114

Karam v Meredith [2012] NSWLEC 1114

The Court was satisfied that the two groups of trees were hedges within s 14A(1) and that notice under s 14C had been complied with. The sunlight aspect of the application was withdrawn. The view loss from V4 and V5 was negligible to minor, from V2 no more than moderate, and from V3 minor to moderate, so s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied for those viewing points. From V1, T6, a large multi-stemmed Bird of Paradise, created a severe obstruction of the most desirable beach and ocean view from a frequently used part of the dwelling. Balancing the matters under ss 14E(2)(b) and 14F, T6 no longer formed an effective privacy screen for the respondent's pool and its removal and replacement with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld in part. Severe obstruction of a view found; one tree to be removed and replaced by the respondent.
Legal Topics
['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'severe Obstruction Under Part 2 A' 'tree Removal and Replacement Orders']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedge Obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'severe Obstruction Under Part 2 A' 'tree Removal and Replacement 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 Pursuant to S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees formed hedges to which s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied.' 'Whether notice of the application complied with s 14C of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the respondent's trees severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the respondent's trees severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii)." "Whether the applicant's interest in removal or remediation outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees." 'What orders, if any, should be made under s 14D of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the two groups of trees were hedges within s 14A(1) and that notice under s 14C had been complied with. The sunlight aspect of the application was withdrawn. The view loss from V4 and V5 was negligible to minor, from V2 no more than moderate, and from V3 minor to moderate, so s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not satisfied for those viewing points. From V1, T6, a large multi-stemmed Bird of Paradise, created a severe obstruction of the most desirable beach and ocean view from a frequently used part of the dwelling. Balancing the matters under ss 14E(2)(b) and 14F, T6 no longer formed an effective privacy screen for the respondent's pool and its removal and replacement with...

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part. Severe obstruction of a view found; one tree to be removed and replaced by the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondent is to remove T6, a large Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia nicolai) to 200 mm below ground level and replace it with a Golden Cane Palm (Dypsis lutescens) or similar clumping palm.' 'Any individual stem of the replacement...