Cope v Muralitharan [2022] NSWLEC 1733

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cope v Muralitharan [2022] NSWLEC 1733 Hearing dates: 27 October 2022 Date of orders: 27 October 2022 Decision date: 27 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The application is refused. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –trees growing near boundary of respondents' land – damage to driveway – is there genuine risk of injury Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 ss 7, 8, 10, 12, Pt 2A ss 14A, 14C, 14E Cases Cited: Granger v Owners Corporation SP 18494 [2012] NSWLEC 1285 Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jennifer Cope (Applicant) Muralitharan Gnanasegaram (First Respondent) Jenanthini Muralitharan (Second Respondent) Representation: J Cope, self-represented (Applicant) J Muralitharan, self-represented (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/250436 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background 1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicant, Ms Cope, owns a property in Baulkham Hills, while Mr and Mrs Muralitharan, the Respondents, are her east side neighbour. The Applicant built and occupied her dwelling in 2001, while the Respondents occupied their property in 2015. 2. Three Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leylands Cypress) are growing in the Respondents' front yard, separating the parties' properties in the absence of a fence. They are about 6.5 metres (m) in height with a canopy spread of about 2.0 m, and they are planted about 400mm from the common boundary. 3. Ms Cope lodged an application, pursuant to s 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act), claiming that roots of the trees have damaged her paved driveway, and are likely to cause further damage in future. The Applicant also claimed that the trees create a genuine risk of injury by blocking visual access to passing traffic and thus increasing the likelihood of a collision with another vehicle upon exiting her driveway. 4. Simultaneously, Ms Cope lodged an application, pursuant to s 14 of Pt 2A of the Trees Act, based on a claim that the trees severely obstruct views from her property.