Maynard & anor v Mobbs & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1416

Maynard & anor v Mobbs & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1416

The trees were all different species, included a Cordyline with a distinctively different form, were not uniformly spaced, and could not be shown to have been planted at the same time or with the intent of forming a hedge. With horticultural expertise, the Commissioner found they were randomly planted as individual specimens around the edge of the lawn as part of an eclectic garden, and that intermingled canopies did not satisfy s 14A(1)(a). Because the trees were not trees to which Part 2A applies, the Court had no jurisdiction to make intervention orders under the Trees Act, so the application had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes' 'property Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'hedge' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 a of the 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 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trees on the respondents' land were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies, namely two or more trees planted so as to form a hedge." "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders to remedy, restrain or prevent severe obstruction of sunlight to windows or views from the applicants' dwelling." 'Whether the alleged obstruction of sunlight and views justified pruning or maintenance orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trees were all different species, included a Cordyline with a distinctively different form, were not uniformly spaced, and could not be shown to have been planted at the same time or with the intent of forming a hedge. With horticultural expertise, the Commissioner found they were randomly planted as individual specimens around the edge of the lawn as part of an eclectic garden, and that intermingled canopies did not satisfy s 14A(1)(a). Because the trees were not trees to which Part 2A applies, the Court had no jurisdiction to make intervention orders under the Trees Act, so the application had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']