Hauser v Vila [2021] NSWLEC 1546
The jurisdictional requirements under s 14E of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 were met because trees T1–T3 and T4–T7 were conifers planted as hedges, exceeded the statutory height threshold, and severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling, and the applicant had tried to reach agreement. The proposed pruning of T1–T3 was not appropriate because the species did not respond well to pruning, the trees would become unattractive, would provide little benefit to the respondent, and would negatively affect streetscape and public amenity; removal of T1–T3 was preferable. Pruning T4–T7 to 5.5 metres was appropriate because those trees were in the...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 September 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Class 2 Application Under S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Obstruction of Sunlight by Neighbouring Hedges / Principal Judgment Following Hearing; Proposed Consent Orders Considered and Final Orders Made
- Outcome
- Orders made requiring the applicant to pay for removal of trees T1–T3 and pruning of trees T4–T7, with access to be allowed by the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- ['neighbouring Hedges' 'conifer Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdiction Under Pt 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'pruning and Removal Orders' 'consent Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 14 B (pt 2 A) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Obstruction of Sunlight by Neighbouring Hedges / Principal Judgment Following Hearing; Proposed Consent Orders Considered and Final Orders Made
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the trees formed hedges rising to a height of at least 2.5 metres for the purposes of s 14A(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'Whether the applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owner under s 14E(1) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' "Whether the trees severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling under s 14E(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" "Whether the applicant's interest in mitigating the obstruction outweighed reasons to avoid interfering with the trees under s 14E(2)(b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" 'Whether the proposed consent orders should be made or different orders were appropriate']
Ratio Decidendi
The jurisdictional requirements under s 14E of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 were met because trees T1–T3 and T4–T7 were conifers planted as hedges, exceeded the statutory height threshold, and severely obstructed sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling, and the applicant had tried to reach agreement. The proposed pruning of T1–T3 was not appropriate because the species did not respond well to pruning, the trees would become unattractive, would provide little benefit to the respondent, and would negatively affect streetscape and public amenity; removal of T1–T3 was preferable. Pruning T4–T7 to 5.5 metres was appropriate because those trees were in the...
Court Disposition
Orders made requiring the applicant to pay for removal of trees T1–T3 and pruning of trees T4–T7, with access to be allowed by the respondent.
Orders
- ['Within 90 days of the date of these orders the applicant is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF Level 3) with all appropriate insurances to remove the conifer trees T1–T3 (see attached "Diagram A") to ground level and to prune conifer trees T4 to T7 (see attached "Diagram A") to a...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment