Cocoran & anor v Goymour [2014] NSWLEC 1018

Cocoran & anor v Goymour [2014] NSWLEC 1018

Although the planting was accepted as a hedge for the purposes of the Act, the palms were not severely obstructing views from any nominated viewing point at the time of the hearing. The obstruction from V1 was minor, the obstruction from V2, V3 and V4 at the time of the application was at most moderate and not severe, and at the hearing was negligible from standing positions and very minor from seated positions. Section 14E(2)(a)(ii) was therefore not satisfied, so the Court could not make orders and did not need to consider s 14E(2)(b) or s 14F.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction Threshold' 'neighbouring Land']
['land and Environment' 'tree Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction Threshold' 'neighbouring Land']

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 / On Site Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the mixed planting of Golden Cane and Bangalow Palms was a hedge to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied.' "Whether the respondent's palms were severely obstructing a view from the applicants' dwelling at the time of the hearing for the purposes of s 14E(2)(a)(ii) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether any further consideration of s 14E(2)(b) and s 14F was required.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the planting was accepted as a hedge for the purposes of the Act, the palms were not severely obstructing views from any nominated viewing point at the time of the hearing. The obstruction from V1 was minor, the obstruction from V2, V3 and V4 at the time of the application was at most moderate and not severe, and at the hearing was negligible from standing positions and very minor from seated positions. Section 14E(2)(a)(ii) was therefore not satisfied, so the Court could not make orders and did not need to consider s 14E(2)(b) or s 14F.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']