Ditton v Barker & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1274

Ditton v Barker & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1274

Although the five trees on each of the respondents' front and rear boundaries were hedges to which Part 2A could apply, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that either hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to the nominated windows. Other structures and trees could also be contributing to shading, and there was uncertainty as to the quantum and cause of the shading. Accordingly s 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied and the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows of a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'application for Removal of Trees']
['trees Disputes' 'neighbour Disputes' 'land and Environment Court'] ['hedge Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows of a Dwelling' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'application for Removal of Trees']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Leyland Cypress trees were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' "Whether the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the severity and nature of any obstruction engaged the Court's power to make orders under s 14D."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the five trees on each of the respondents' front and rear boundaries were hedges to which Part 2A could apply, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that either hedge was severely obstructing sunlight to the nominated windows. Other structures and trees could also be contributing to shading, and there was uncertainty as to the quantum and cause of the shading. Accordingly s 14E(2)(a)(i) was not satisfied and the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']