Brown v Sharp [2019] NSWLEC 1382

Brown v Sharp [2019] NSWLEC 1382

The application was dismissed because T1 and T2 did not satisfy s 14A(1)(a) as one was probably self-sown and the trees were highly dissimilar, T5 was a single clumping bamboo and not a hedge, and although T4 satisfied s 14A(1) and the reasonable effort requirement was met, T4 caused only minor view loss capable of reduction to negligible by maintenance and was not severely obstructing a view under s 14E(2)(a)(ii).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction'] ['hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement' 'view Sharing']

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

Class 2 Application Under S 14 B of Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trees formed a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'Whether the applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owners of the land on which the trees were situated under s 14E(1)(a)' "Whether the bamboo hedge T4 was severely obstructing a view from a dwelling on the applicant's land under s 14E(2)(a)(ii)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because T1 and T2 did not satisfy s 14A(1)(a) as one was probably self-sown and the trees were highly dissimilar, T5 was a single clumping bamboo and not a hedge, and although T4 satisfied s 14A(1) and the reasonable effort requirement was met, T4 caused only minor view loss capable of reduction to negligible by maintenance and was not severely obstructing a view under s 14E(2)(a)(ii).

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']