Ong v Murray [2025] NSWLEC 1023

Ong v Murray [2025] NSWLEC 1023

Although the hedge on the respondents' property caused a severe obstruction to sunlight for certain windows, the extent of obstruction was not materially different from when the applicant first occupied his extensively altered dwelling, and the applicant's changes to the dwelling (especially reduced window size and altered configuration) contributed to the sunlight loss. The Court found that the adverse effects of pruning the hedge to 2.5m, especially loss of respondents' privacy, aesthetic values, and hedge health, outweighed the applicant's interest in increased sunlight. As the test in s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees Act is not satisfied, the Court has no power to make the requested orders.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Ong; First Respondent: Stuart Murray; Second Respondent: Louise Formosa
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute – High Hedge Obstruction / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Sunlight Obstruction, Privacy and Urban Vegetation, Obstruction of View/sunlight, Hedge Disputes
Environment and Planning Law Property Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Sunlight Obstruction Privacy and Urban Vegetation Obstruction of View/sunlight Hedge Disputes

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Ong

Applicant

Stuart Murray

First Respondent

Louise Formosa

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute – High Hedge Obstruction / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bamboo hedge on the respondents' property severely obstructs sunlight to the applicant's dwelling windows within the meaning of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed or remedied outweighs the undesirability of interfering with the hedge, considering privacy and aesthetic factors
  3. 3 Proper baseline for sunlight access assessment in the context of dwelling alterations

Ratio Decidendi

Although the hedge on the respondents' property caused a severe obstruction to sunlight for certain windows, the extent of obstruction was not materially different from when the applicant first occupied his extensively altered dwelling, and the applicant's changes to the dwelling (especially reduced window size and altered configuration) contributed to the sunlight loss. The Court found that the adverse effects of pruning the hedge to 2.5m, especially loss of respondents' privacy, aesthetic values, and hedge health, outweighed the applicant's interest in increased sunlight. As the test in s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees Act is not satisfied, the Court has no power to make the requested orders.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.