Stocker v Robbins [2020] NSWLEC 1507

Stocker v Robbins [2020] NSWLEC 1507

The applicant's views from the upper storey are severely obstructed by the respondents' hedge, satisfying the 'severe obstruction' threshold under the Trees Act. While sunlight obstruction did not meet the requirement, the balancing of interests (including privacy and pruning impacts) justified orders to reduce and maintain tree height, remedying view loss without unduly prejudicing the respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Sasha Paul Stocker; First Respondent: Alisha Allen Robbins; Second Respondent: Cameron Richard Johnston
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (class 2, NSW Land and Environment Court) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; pruning orders made
Legal Topics
Trees Disputes Between Neighbours, Severe Obstruction of Views, Sunlight Obstruction, Pruning Orders
Environmental Law Property Law Trees Disputes Between Neighbours Severe Obstruction of Views Sunlight Obstruction Pruning Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sasha Paul Stocker

Applicant

Alisha Allen Robbins

First Respondent

Cameron Richard Johnston

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute (class 2, NSW Land and Environment Court) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' trees form a hedge within the meaning of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute before applying to the Court
  3. 3 Whether the hedge severely obstructs sunlight to the applicant's windows or views from the applicant's dwelling

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's views from the upper storey are severely obstructed by the respondents' hedge, satisfying the 'severe obstruction' threshold under the Trees Act. While sunlight obstruction did not meet the requirement, the balancing of interests (including privacy and pruning impacts) justified orders to reduce and maintain tree height, remedying view loss without unduly prejudicing the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application granted; pruning orders made

Orders

  • Within 30 days, respondents to prune (or engage a contractor to prune) all trees in the Quandong hedge (~18 trees) along their western and northern boundaries so each tree is no more than 2.5 metres above adjacent paling fence.
  • Respondents to prune (or engage a contractor) during April–May annually (from April–May 2021) so each tree is no more than 3.0 metres above the nearest paling fence.