Knight v Westbury [2016] NSWLEC 1438

Knight v Westbury [2016] NSWLEC 1438

Because the Cypress trees had been removed, the Part 2A sunlight obstruction claim had to be dismissed. However, the Court was satisfied that roots from the respondent's tree or trees had caused minor damage by lifting some pavers, engaging the Court's jurisdiction under s 10(2). Given the limited extent of damage and the respondent's removal of the trees, only a $100 contribution to rectification was warranted rather than the full amount of either quote.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Part 2A application dismissed; limited reimbursement ordered for rectification of uneven paving.
Legal Topics
['cypress Trees' 'lifted Pavers' 'potential Injury' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'rectification Costs']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['cypress Trees' 'lifted Pavers' 'potential Injury' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'rectification Costs']

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 the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application under Part 2A should be dismissed because the trees had been removed and no longer severely obstructed sunlight to the applicant's dwelling windows." "Whether the respondent's tree or trees caused damage to the applicant's property by lifting pavers so as to engage s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'What contribution, if any, the respondent should make towards the cost of rectifying the uneven paving.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Cypress trees had been removed, the Part 2A sunlight obstruction claim had to be dismissed. However, the Court was satisfied that roots from the respondent's tree or trees had caused minor damage by lifting some pavers, engaging the Court's jurisdiction under s 10(2). Given the limited extent of damage and the respondent's removal of the trees, only a $100 contribution to rectification was warranted rather than the full amount of either quote.

Court Disposition

Part 2A application dismissed; limited reimbursement ordered for rectification of uneven paving.

Orders

  • ['The application in respect of Part 2A of the Act is dismissed.' 'The applicant is to engage and pay for an appropriate tradesperson to rectify the uneven paving. The work is to be completed within 90 days of the date of these orders otherwise Order (3) lapses.' "The respondent is to reimburse the applicant the sum...