Golchin & Ors v Lakis & Anor [2012] NSWLEC 1180

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golchin & Ors v Lakis & Anor [2012] NSWLEC 1180 Hearing dates: 8 June 2012 Decision date: 06 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: (1)The application to prune and maintain three trees in the respondents' property is upheld in part. (2)Within 30 days of the date of these Orders the respondents are to prune the three trees T1, T2 and T3 to a height not exceeding 4 m measured from ground level at the base of each tree. (3)The respondents are to maintain the three trees T1, T2 and T3 at a height no greater than 4.5 m, measured from ground level at the base of each tree, into the future. (4)The exhibits are retained. Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views; iconic views; severe obstruction; pruning ordered. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Abdolrahim Golchin (First Applicant) Mr Kian Golchin (Second Applicant) Ms Leila Golchin (Third Applicant)

Mr Edward Ted Lakis (First respondent) Ms Cassiani Tassis (Second respondent) Representation: Mr Simon Brockwell (Counsel for the applicants) Mr Edward Lakis (Respondent in person) File Number(s): 20083 of 2012

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: The owners of a property in Vaucluse claim that views they once enjoyed of Sydney Harbour, the Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House have become obstructed by neighbouring trees. Three members of the Golchin family have applied to the Court under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ("the Act") seeking orders for pruning of the trees to a suitable height and maintenance of those trees at a suitable height. 2Mr Lakis, an owner of the neighbouring property on which the trees grow, disputes the severity of view obstruction and says the extent of pruning sought by the applicants is excessive. 3Before the Court can make any orders regarding the trees, I must determine if the trees form a hedge as required by the Act and if they severely obstruct a view. Only if these jurisdictional tests are satisfied may I proceed to make orders, as I think fit, to remedy, restrain or prevent the view obstruction.