Tanios v Giourgas [2023] NSWLEC 1806

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tanios v Giourgas [2023] NSWLEC 1806 Hearing dates: 23 November 2023 Date of orders: 23 November 2023 Decision date: 23 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The orders of the Court are: (1) The application is refused. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – sunlight to a window is not severely obstructed – slime and mould, and injury from spiders, are not covered by the jurisdiction Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2 ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Pt 2A ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Hendry & anor v Olsson & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1302 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Tanios (Applicant) Steven Giourgas (First Respondent) Mary Giourgas (Second Respondent) Representation: G Tanios (Self-represented) (Applicant) S Giourgas (Self-represented) (Respondents) File Number(s): 2023/282363 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1. Background 2. George Tanios, the applicant, owns and occupies a property in Allawah. The respondents, Steven and Mary Giourgas, live in the adjacent property, north-west of the applicant. Both parties' two-story dwellings have the same front setback from the street and face south-west over shallow rectangular yards. The gap between the dwellings is about 2.5 metres (m). 3. Mr Tanios' occupation long predates the Giourgas'. When the respondents purchased and occupied their property in about 2005, they inherited a hedge of Thuja sp., growing close to the common boundary between the parties' front yards. 4. Mr Tanios contended that the hedge severely blocked sunlight to a front dwelling window and caused mould on outer walls. The applicant claimed that the previous owner of the 'Giourgas property' had cut the hedge low to allow entry of sunlight, but the respondents would not prune the hedge, or prune it sufficiently, to remedy his alleged severe sunlight obstruction. 5. Consequently, Mr Tanios made an application to the Land and Environment Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act), and s 14B of the Trees Act.