Arnold v Persson [2022] NSWLEC 1270

Arnold v Persson [2022] NSWLEC 1270

The palms in question were not planted so as to form a hedge as contemplated by s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, and thus the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders. Even if Pt 2A applied, the temporary and partial obstruction of the view does not outweigh the desirability of retaining the palms given their amenity value and the remaining view.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 a Application / Principal Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'obstruction of Views' 'jurisdiction Over Hedges']

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

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 a Application / Principal Judgment at First Instance

  1. 1 ['Whether the palm trees are planted so as to form a hedge within the meaning of Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' "Whether the palms severely obstruct the applicant's view from his dwelling" 'Whether the Court should make orders for removal or pruning of the palms balancing the interests of both parties']

Ratio Decidendi

The palms in question were not planted so as to form a hedge as contemplated by s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, and thus the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders. Even if Pt 2A applied, the temporary and partial obstruction of the view does not outweigh the desirability of retaining the palms given their amenity value and the remaining view.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']