Hanna v Hampton [2023] NSWLEC 1752

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v Hampton [2023] NSWLEC 1752 Hearing dates: 21 November 2023 Date of orders: 21 November 2023 Decision date: 21 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: See orders at [21]. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – damage and injury – debris – Pt 2A application – lilly pilly hedge – obstruction of sunlight – whether the obstruction is severe – privacy – who should prune the applicant's side of the hedge Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pts 2, 2A, ss 7, 10, 14B, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Hendry & anor v Olsson & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1302 Vartazarian v Elworthy; Fallows v Elworthy [2020] NSWLEC 1462 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Hanna (Applicant) Leon Hampton (First Respondent) Alana Hampton (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: P Hanna (Self-represented) (Applicant) F Russell-Matthews (Solicitor) (Respondents)

Solicitors: Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Limited (Respondents) File Number(s): 2023/291628 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background 1. COMMISSIONER: Peter Hanna (the applicant) has 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 relating to trees on a neighbouring Ropes Crossing property belonging to Alana and Leon Hampton (the respondents). 2. A row of 21 lilly pillies (Syzygium sp.) (the trees) grows on the Hamptons' property along the common boundary shared with Mr Hanna. Pursuant to s 7 of the Trees Act, Mr Hanna seeks to prevent damage to his property and to prevent injury. Pursuant to s 14B of the Trees Act, he seeks to remedy the sunlight obstruction caused by the trees. 3. The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to inspect the trees and both properties. The Court went to the applicant's property to inspect the trees' impacts on sunlight. Privacy issues were observed at both properties.