Hamman v Ip [2015] NSWLEC 1416

Hamman v Ip [2015] NSWLEC 1416

Although the respondent's trees were planted so as to form two hedges and satisfied s 14A(1)(a), the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to any nominated windows. The site evidence and respondent's photographs indicated no obstruction of sunlight to almost all nominated windows as a consequence of the respondent's trees, with only a minor obstruction to W1. Because the trees to which Part 2A applied were not severely obstructing sunlight to any windows of the applicant's dwelling, the application had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Application for Orders Seeking Pruning of Trees; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'insufficient Evidence']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['hedge' 'severe Obstruction of Sunlight' 'jurisdictional Tests Under Part 2 A' 'insufficient Evidence']

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 Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Application for Orders Seeking Pruning of Trees; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's trees were trees to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 applies." "Whether the respondent's trees were severely obstructing sunlight to windows of the applicant's dwelling." 'Whether the Court should make orders for pruning of the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's trees were planted so as to form two hedges and satisfied s 14A(1)(a), the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the trees were severely obstructing sunlight to any nominated windows. The site evidence and respondent's photographs indicated no obstruction of sunlight to almost all nominated windows as a consequence of the respondent's trees, with only a minor obstruction to W1. Because the trees to which Part 2A applied were not severely obstructing sunlight to any windows of the applicant's dwelling, the application had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']