Wilson v Nisbett [2021] NSWLEC 1419

Wilson v Nisbett [2021] NSWLEC 1419

The obstruction to the applicant's view caused by the respondents' trees is minor and cannot be described as severe; therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders under Pt 2A of the Trees Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'obstruction of View' 'hedges']
['property Law'] ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'obstruction of View' 'hedges']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the lilly pilly hedge severely obstructs the applicant's view from her dwelling" 'Whether the applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owners' 'Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2A']

Ratio Decidendi

The obstruction to the applicant's view caused by the respondents' trees is minor and cannot be described as severe; therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders under Pt 2A of the Trees Act.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

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