Perryman v Yemma [2014] NSWLEC 1177

Perryman v Yemma [2014] NSWLEC 1177

The Court dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the obstruction of sunlight or view caused by the trees was severe, and even if a severe obstruction existed, it was not satisfied that the obstruction developed during the applicant's occupancy rather than being substantially present when she...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Hearing and Extemporaneous Decision
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'privacy Between Neighbours']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['hedges' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'obstruction of Views' 'privacy Between Neighbours']

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 S 14 B of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Hearing and Extemporaneous Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hedge of six Leighton Green Cypress trees caused a severe obstruction of sunlight to the applicant's windows." "Whether the hedge caused a severe obstruction of views from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether any severe obstruction developed during the applicant's occupancy rather than being substantially present when she began occupying the dwelling in 2009." 'Whether orders should be made to prune the trees to no higher than 2.5 metres and maintain them at that height, or remove them.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the obstruction of sunlight or view caused by the trees was severe, and even if a severe obstruction existed, it was not satisfied that the obstruction developed during the applicant's occupancy rather than being substantially present when she began occupying the dwelling in 2009.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']