Low v Nazarewicz [2022] NSWLEC 1597

Low v Nazarewicz [2022] NSWLEC 1597

Although the applicant made reasonable efforts to reach agreement and the trees formed a hedge to which Pt 2A applied, the Court was not satisfied that the hedge severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling. The relevant rear views had always been filtered by existing vegetation, the Golden Cane Palms were not recent plantings and the newer bamboo did not itself severely obstruct the dwelling's view. Because s 14E(2)(a) was not engaged, the Pt 2A application for pruning was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Hedge on Adjoining Land / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Pt 2A application refused.
Legal Topics
['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing' 'privacy Screening']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Law'] ['high Hedges' 'severe Obstruction of Views' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing' 'privacy Screening']

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 Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Hedge on Adjoining Land / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents before seeking orders.' 'Whether the Palms and bamboo trees formed a hedge to which Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies.' "Whether the hedge severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the applicant's interest in pruning or removing the obstruction outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant made reasonable efforts to reach agreement and the trees formed a hedge to which Pt 2A applied, the Court was not satisfied that the hedge severely obstructed views from the applicant's dwelling. The relevant rear views had always been filtered by existing vegetation, the Golden Cane Palms were not recent plantings and the newer bamboo did not itself severely obstruct the dwelling's view. Because s 14E(2)(a) was not engaged, the Pt 2A application for pruning was refused.

Court Disposition

Pt 2A application refused.

Orders

  • ['The Pt 2A application is refused.' 'All exhibits are returned.']