King v Moore [2023] NSWLEC 1654

King v Moore [2023] NSWLEC 1654

The Bangalow palms do not constitute a 'hedge' as envisaged by s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 because palms cannot be pruned to form a hedge, and even if they did, the view obstruction is temporary and does not outweigh the benefits of retaining the trees. Thus, no orders for removal or interference are warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 a Application / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'hedges' 'obstruction of Views']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 a Application / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the group of Bangalow palms constitutes a 'hedge' under s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" "Whether the palms severely obstruct a view from the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)" 'Whether the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that interference with the trees is warranted under s 14E(2)(b)']

Ratio Decidendi

The Bangalow palms do not constitute a 'hedge' as envisaged by s 14A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 because palms cannot be pruned to form a hedge, and even if they did, the view obstruction is temporary and does not outweigh the benefits of retaining the trees. Thus, no orders for removal or interference are warranted.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A.']