Pongrass v Caridad [2019] NSWLEC 1468

Pongrass v Caridad [2019] NSWLEC 1468

The Pearce Street hedge did not severely obstruct any relevant view because it affected only views into neighbouring courtyards or was largely screened by the applicant's own hedge, so that part of the application was refused. The boundary hedge, however, formed a solid screen above the boundary fence and severely obstructed valuable water views from high-use living areas, particularly V1B and V2. The applicant's view had previously been available, the applicant's interest in restoring it outweighed the respondents' privacy interest, and privacy could still be maintained with a shorter hedge; therefore pruning orders were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) for Orders Relating to Bamboo Hedges on Neighbouring Properties / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused for the Pearce Street hedge and granted for the boundary hedge.
Legal Topics
['bamboo Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of a View' 'privacy Screening' 'pruning Orders']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['bamboo Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction of a View' 'privacy Screening' 'pruning 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 Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) for Orders Relating to Bamboo Hedges on Neighbouring Properties / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Pearce Street bamboo hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the boundary bamboo hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling." 'If a severe obstruction was established, what orders were appropriate after considering the matters in s 14F of the Trees Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Pearce Street hedge did not severely obstruct any relevant view because it affected only views into neighbouring courtyards or was largely screened by the applicant's own hedge, so that part of the application was refused. The boundary hedge, however, formed a solid screen above the boundary fence and severely obstructed valuable water views from high-use living areas, particularly V1B and V2. The applicant's view had previously been available, the applicant's interest in restoring it outweighed the respondents' privacy interest, and privacy could still be maintained with a shorter hedge; therefore pruning orders were warranted.

Court Disposition

Application refused for the Pearce Street hedge and granted for the boundary hedge.

Orders

  • ['The application to prune the Pearce Street hedge is refused.' 'The application to prune the boundary hedge is granted.' 'During January, April, July and October each year, beginning October 2019, the respondents are to engage a suitably experienced and insured contractor to prune the bamboo hedge along their...