Greig v Wolff [2022] NSWLEC 1267

Greig v Wolff [2022] NSWLEC 1267

Pt 2A applied and the Applicant had made reasonable efforts to reach agreement. Hedge 1 severely obstructed the valuable harbour, Rose Bay and district view from the main living room, and the benefit to the Applicant of restoring that view outweighed the amenity, privacy and other benefits of retaining the hedge at its existing height. Hedge 2 did not severely obstruct any relevant view because any obstruction was minor or primarily caused by other vegetation and buildings. Accordingly, orders were warranted only for pruning and annual maintenance of Hedge 1.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Pt 2 a Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Site View
Outcome
Application upheld to the extent of orders requiring pruning and annual maintenance of Hedge 1.
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction' 'pruning Orders' 'view Sharing']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['neighbouring Hedges' 'obstruction of Views' 'severe Obstruction' 'pruning Orders' '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 Pt 2 a Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Site View

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applied to the trees in the two hedges.' 'Whether the Applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the Respondent.' "Whether trees in Hedge 1 or Hedge 2 severely obstructed a view from the Applicant's dwelling." "Whether the Applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighed matters suggesting the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees." 'What pruning orders, if any, should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Pt 2A applied and the Applicant had made reasonable efforts to reach agreement. Hedge 1 severely obstructed the valuable harbour, Rose Bay and district view from the main living room, and the benefit to the Applicant of restoring that view outweighed the amenity, privacy and other benefits of retaining the hedge at its existing height. Hedge 2 did not severely obstruct any relevant view because any obstruction was minor or primarily caused by other vegetation and buildings. Accordingly, orders were warranted only for pruning and annual maintenance of Hedge 1.

Court Disposition

Application upheld to the extent of orders requiring pruning and annual maintenance of Hedge 1.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld to the extent of the following orders.' "Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the Respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist or horticulturist (minimum AQF level 3) with all appropriate insurances to prune all trees in Hedge 1 (shown as trees...