Miletta v Ngo [2024] NSWLEC 1070

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miletta v Ngo [2024] NSWLEC 1070 Hearing dates: 16 February 2024 Date of orders: 16 February 2024 Decision date: 16 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The application is refused. (2) The exhibits are returned, except for exhibit A. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –Pt 2A application – two neighbouring hedges – obstruction of views and sunlight – whether the obstruction is severe – background material – whether the applicants have lost sunlight and views Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280 Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Caterina Miletta (First Applicant) Carmela Miletta (Second Applicant) Michael Ngo (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Miletta (Self-represented) (First Applicant) C Miletta (Agent) (Second Applicant) M Ngo (Self-represented) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/291872 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

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

Background 1. COMMISSIONER: Caterina and Carmela Miletta (the applicants) have carried out extension and construction works at their Longueville property in accordance with their Development Consent. Vegetation on the neighbouring property belonging to Michael Ngo (the respondent) includes two hedges along the common boundary. The applicants have applied to the Court pursuant to s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) seeking orders for trees in both hedges to be pruned to, and maintained at, the height of the boundary fence. 2. The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to inspect the trees, their impact on sunlight and views, and other relevant issues. and both properties. At the outset of the hearing, Caterina Miletta was granted leave to act as agent for her sister, Carmela, who was unable to attend. The respondent was self-represented.