Popovac v Kennedy [2021] NSWLEC 1635

Popovac v Kennedy [2021] NSWLEC 1635

T1 was not planted to form a hedge with T3 and was not part of a hedge for Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. The hedge along the respondents' northern boundary comprised the T3 trees only, and the applicant accepted that T3 did not obstruct a view. Because Pt 2A did not apply to T1 and the qualifying hedge did not severely obstruct a view, the Court could not make the orders sought and the application was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
The application was refused.
Legal Topics
['pt 2 a Application' 'obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Requirements for Orders' 'tree Pruning and Maintenance']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['pt 2 a Application' 'obstruction of Views' 'hedges' 'jurisdictional Requirements for Orders' 'tree Pruning and 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether T1 was planted so as to form a hedge with the trees in T3 for the purposes of Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether T1 severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the Court could make orders to prune or maintain trees to remedy, restrain or prevent obstruction of the applicant's views."]

Ratio Decidendi

T1 was not planted to form a hedge with T3 and was not part of a hedge for Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. The hedge along the respondents' northern boundary comprised the T3 trees only, and the applicant accepted that T3 did not obstruct a view. Because Pt 2A did not apply to T1 and the qualifying hedge did not severely obstruct a view, the Court could not make the orders sought and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

The application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned except for A and 1.']