Finney v Edmonds [2019] NSWLEC 1295

Finney v Edmonds [2019] NSWLEC 1295

The trees have not damaged, are not damaging, and are not likely in the near future (12 months) to damage the applicants' fence; therefore, the Court cannot make orders under s 10(2) of the Trees Act.

Parties
Applicant: Robert John Finney; Applicant: Kay Alice Finney; Respondent: Scott Edmonds; Respondent: Sarah Edmonds
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Damage to Fences, Tree Maintenance
Property Law Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Damage to Fences Tree Maintenance

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Finney

Applicant

Kay Alice Finney

Applicant

Scott Edmonds

Respondent

Sarah Edmonds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cypress hedge planted by the respondents is causing or is likely to cause damage to the applicants' fence within the near future
  2. 2 Whether orders should be made for pruning or maintenance of the hedge under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The trees have not damaged, are not damaging, and are not likely in the near future (12 months) to damage the applicants' fence; therefore, the Court cannot make orders under s 10(2) of the Trees Act.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.