NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Low v Cooper [2022] NSWLEC 1596 Hearing dates: 15 September 2022 Date of orders: 31 October 2022 Decision date: 31 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) Within 45 days of the date of these orders, the respondent, at their own expense, shall prune the hedge of bamboo trees to the height of 21.95m AHD, which is along the southern boundary fence on 7 Ryan Avenue, being the common fence with 5 Ryan Avenue, and to remove refuse. (2) The respondent, at their own expense, shall maintain the hedge in this location, so that at no time in the future, after completion of the pruning in Order 1, does the height of the hedge exceed a level above 21.95m AHD. (3) The pruning works shall be completed by AQF level 3 arborists, with all appropriate insurances, and in accordance with the Australian pruning standard (AS4373:2007 Pruning of amenity trees). (4) The tree works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016. (5) Should access be required into the Applicant's property to undertake these works or to remove refuse, the applicant shall provide such access to the respondents, or arborists they employ to complete the work, who hold all appropriate insurances, upon receipt of at least 48 hours written notice from the Respondent. (6) The works are to be completed during reasonable working hours. (7) All exhibits are returned. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – whether the applicant made reasonable effort – high hedges – is the obstruction of views severe – balance between views and privacy – pruning ordered Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140 Texts Cited: AS4373:2007 Pruning of amenity trees Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Patricia Low (Applicant) Guy Cooper (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T To (Applicant) A Sattler (Solicitor)(Respondent)
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