Economos v Warden [2025] NSWLEC 1108

Economos v Warden [2025] NSWLEC 1108

The trees constitute a hedge as defined in s 14A(1) and are severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling within the meaning of s 14E(2)(a)(ii). The applicant's interest in remedying the obstruction outweighs any undesirability of interfering with the trees. Therefore, orders for regular pruning, at the applicant's cost, are justified to balance view restoration and respondent's privacy.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Economos; First Respondent: John Warden; Second Respondent: Angie Warden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; orders for pruning made; application for tree removal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pruning of Trees, High Hedges, View Sharing, Privacy Between Neighbours
Environmental Law Property Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pruning of Trees High Hedges View Sharing Privacy Between Neighbours

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Economos

Applicant

John Warden

First Respondent

Angie Warden

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees form a hedge within the meaning of s 14A of the Act
  2. 2 Whether the trees severely obstruct views from applicant's property
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's interest in remedying the obstruction outweighs the respondent's interest in privacy

Ratio Decidendi

The trees constitute a hedge as defined in s 14A(1) and are severely obstructing a view from the applicant's dwelling within the meaning of s 14E(2)(a)(ii). The applicant's interest in remedying the obstruction outweighs any undesirability of interfering with the trees. Therefore, orders for regular pruning, at the applicant's cost, are justified to balance view restoration and respondent's privacy.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; orders for pruning made; application for tree removal dismissed.

Orders

  • Within 3 months of judgment, applicant to engage and pay for AQF level 3 arborist to prune trees numbered 1, 2 and 3 to a height of 2.5 metres above the top of the existing Colorbond fence, to previous pruning stubs, in accordance with AS4373-2007.
  • Pruning to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry.