Boyd v Cinelli [2021] NSWLEC 1319

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Boyd v Cinelli [2021] NSWLEC 1319 Hearing dates: 13 April 2021 Date of orders: 7 June 2021 Decision date: 07 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: See orders at [39] Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Part 2 application – damage to property – whether trees are likely to cause damage – Part 2A application – obstruction of views and sunlight – orders for pruning Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 7, 9, 10, 12; Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14D, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: White v Baird [2014] NSWLEC 1189 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Texts Cited: Safe Work Australia, 'Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work' (2016) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Racheal Boyd (First Applicant) Stephen Moore (Second Applicant) Domenic Cinelli (First Respondent) Andigone Cinelli (Second Respondent) Representation: Racheal Boyd (Litigant in Person) (First Applicant) Stephen Moore (Litigant in Person) (Second Applicant) Domenic Cinelli (Litigant in Person) (First Respondent) Andigone Cinelli (Litigant in Person) (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/339466 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Background to the application 1. Racheal Boyd and Stephen Moore ('the applicants') have applied to the Court pursuant to both s 7 (Pt 2) and s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act'), seeking orders for trees in several neighbouring hedges to be pruned or removed, and for works to planter boxes holding some of these trees. The trees belong to Domenic and Andigone Cinelli ('the respondents'). The applicants have identified the following issues in their application: * Planter boxes holding some of the trees were not constructed in accordance with the respondents' development consent. This is likely to lead to damage of the boundary fence. Under Pt 2 of the Trees Act, they want the planter boxes dismantled and rebuilt according to the development consent. * The Cinellis planted more trees in planter boxes than shown on their approved landscape plan in their development consent. The additional trees contribute to the sunlight and view obstruction. The additional trees are likely to damage the planter boxes, leading to damage to the fence along their common boundary. The applicants want the additional trees removed under both Pt 2 and Pt 2A of the Trees Act. * Trees in the hedges obstruct sunlight to their dwelling, and views from their dwelling. Under Pt 2A of the Trees Act, the applicants want the remaining trees to be pruned to 2 metres in height, as per a condition in the respondents' development consent, and maintained at that height. They also want orders for the maintenance pruning to be included in any contract of sale for the respondents' property. 1. The respondents refute all elements of the application other than the need to reduce the height of trees in their hedges, which they intend to do.