Armstrong v Delahunt & anor; McShane v Delahunt & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1226

Armstrong v Delahunt & anor; McShane v Delahunt & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1226

The Ash trees numbered 1-4 did form a hedge and were tall enough under s 14A. However, after considering discretionary matters under s 14F and the evidence, the applicants' interests did not outweigh the undesirability of disturbing the trees, as other factors including trees beyond the scope of Part 2A contributed significantly to any loss of view. Therefore, jurisdictional requirements under s 14E(2)(b) were not satisfied and no orders could be made.

Parties
Applicant: Ms S Armstrong; Applicant: Mr J McShane; First Respondent: Mr R Delahunt; Second Respondent: Ms J Delahunt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Class 2 / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Hedges, Obstruction of Views
Environment and Planning Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Hedges Obstruction of Views

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms S Armstrong

Applicant

Mr J McShane

Applicant

Mr R Delahunt

First Respondent

Ms J Delahunt

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Class 2 / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees on the respondents' property form a hedge as defined by s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the trees severely obstruct views from the applicants' dwellings such as to satisfy s 14E(2) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether discretionary factors under s 14F weigh in favour of making orders for removal or pruning

Ratio Decidendi

The Ash trees numbered 1-4 did form a hedge and were tall enough under s 14A. However, after considering discretionary matters under s 14F and the evidence, the applicants' interests did not outweigh the undesirability of disturbing the trees, as other factors including trees beyond the scope of Part 2A contributed significantly to any loss of view. Therefore, jurisdictional requirements under s 14E(2)(b) were not satisfied and no orders could be made.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application in matter 20624 of 2013 is dismissed.
  • Application in matter 20625 of 2013 is dismissed.