Atkins v Fera [2020] NSWLEC 1615

Atkins v Fera [2020] NSWLEC 1615

On the evidence before the Court, particularly the lack of sufficiently dated and probative photographs or other proof, it was not established that the bamboo hedge severely obstructs sunlight to the applicant's windows as required by s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Accordingly, no orders can be made.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Atkins; First Respondent: Bianca Dominique Fera; Second Respondent: Matthew Richard Graham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Hedges, Obstruction of Sunlight, Evidentiary Requirements
Property Law Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Hedges Obstruction of Sunlight Evidentiary Requirements

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

Parties

Robert Atkins

Applicant

Bianca Dominique Fera

First Respondent

Matthew Richard Graham

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bamboo hedge severely obstructs sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling as required by s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Court, particularly the lack of sufficiently dated and probative photographs or other proof, it was not established that the bamboo hedge severely obstructs sunlight to the applicant's windows as required by s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Accordingly, no orders can be made.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • The application is refused.