Torday & Anor v Eather [2012] NSWLEC 1014

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Torday & Anor v Eather [2012] NSWLEC 1014 Hearing dates: 25 January 2012 Decision date: 25 January 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: Application dismissed Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 McLaren v Lewis [2011] NSWLEC 1170 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms E Torday & Mr S Alexander (Applicants) Mr R and Mrs S Eather (Respondents) Representation: Applicants: Ms E Torday and Mr S Alexander (Litigants in Person) Respondents: Mr R Eather (Litigant in Person) File Number(s): 20937 of 2011

Judgment This decision was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1COMMISSIONER: This is an application made under s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by the owners of a property in Stanwell Park against the owners of trees growing on an adjoining property. 2The applicants contend that the trees severely obstruct a number of views from their dwelling. They seek the following orders (summarised): (1)Removal of two Cocos palms ( Syagrus romanzoffiana) by the respondents; (2)Regular pruning of photinias, 'kentias' and all other trees to the height of the dividing fence - by the respondents; (3)Ongoing maintenance of all trees and shrubs at or below the height of the dividing fence - by the respondents; (4)Authorisation of the applicants to enter the respondents' property to maintain trees and shrubs below the height of the dividing fence; (5)Respondents to reimburse the applicants for the costs of any pruning carried out under order (4); (6)Respondents to reimburse the applicants the cost of the application fee. 3With respect to order (6), Commissioners do not have the jurisdiction to award such costs; a separate application must be made. 4In response to the application, the respondents have undertaken some pruning of the trees. They do not wish to remove the Cocos palms, and they object strongly to order (4).