Griffiths & anor v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 9383 [2016] NSWLEC 1294

Griffiths & anor v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 9383 [2016] NSWLEC 1294

The observed view from the applicants' balcony still included the beach, sand, surf, people on the beach, the land/water interface, the headland and horizon; Tree 5 obscured only part of the distant horizon and the other four trees did not obstruct any view of water. Considering the view as a whole, the impact was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Seeking Pruning or Removal of Five Trees / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction' 'neighbouring Trees']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment Court'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction' 'neighbouring Trees']

Source-derived case record

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 Seeking Pruning or Removal of Five Trees / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's five Casuarina trees were severely obstructing a view from the applicants' dwelling within s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the severity and nature of any obstruction justified orders for pruning or removal of the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The observed view from the applicants' balcony still included the beach, sand, surf, people on the beach, the land/water interface, the headland and horizon; Tree 5 obscured only part of the distant horizon and the other four trees did not obstruct any view of water. Considering the view as a whole, the impact was minor to moderate, not severe or extreme. Because s 14E(2)(a)(ii) was not met, the Court had no jurisdiction to further consider the matter and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']