NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bamford v Thrush [2021] NSWLEC 1387 Hearing dates: 13 May 2021 Date of orders: 13 May 2021 Decision date: 13 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The orders of the Court are: (1) Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the respondents shall, at their expense, prune the height of the hedge to no higher than 3.9 metres above ground level, measured from the base of the hedge. (2) The respondents shall, at their expense, maintain the hedge so that at no time in the future does its height exceed 4.2 metres above ground level, measured from the base of the hedge, and, so that at no time in the future does foliage from the top metre of the hedge, protrude over the shared property boundary into the applicant's property. (3) The pruning shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016. (4) Should access be required to prune the top of the hedge from within the applicants property, so as to comply with order (2), or to remove refuse, the applicant shall provide access to the respondent, or arborists they employ to complete the work, who hold all appropriate insurances, upon receipt of at least 48 hours written notice from the respondents. (5) The works shall be completed during reasonable working hours. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – are views severely obstructed – is the obstruction of sunlight severe – balance between sunlight and privacy – pruning ordered Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ss 14A, 14B, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Schou v Gonsalves [2011] NSWLEC 1174 Simon v Goltsman [2021] NSWLEC 1069 Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140 Texts Cited: Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ian Keith Edward Bamford (Applicant) Trevor Thrush (First Respondent) Cathryn Thrush (Second Respondent) Representation: I Bamford (Litigant in person) (Applicant) T Thrush (Litigant in person) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/39712 Publication restriction: No
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate