De Zylva & anor v Staas & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1242

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: De Zylva & anor v Staas & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1242 Hearing dates: 23 August 2012 Decision date: 29 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: Application dismissed Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge - obstruction of afternoon sunlight; severe obstruction not found; impacts of things other than the trees the subjects of the application Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Ball v Bahramali [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152 Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Christopher & Mrs Robyn de Zylva (Applicants) Mr Ian Staas (First Respondent) Ms Josephine Duggan (Second Respondent) Representation: Applicants: C & R de Zylva (Litigants in person) First respondent: Mr I Staas (Litigant in person) Second Respondent: Ms J Duggan (Litigant in person) File Number(s): 20540 of 2012

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an application made under s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) by the owners of a property in St Ives against the owners of trees growing on an adjoining property. 2The applicants contend that eight xCupressocyparis leylandii (Leyland Cypress) trees severely obstruct sunlight to four nominated windows of their dwelling. They are seeking orders for the removal of those trees at the respondents' cost and from within the respondents' property. 3The respondents do not wish to remove the trees but have obtained permission from Ku-ring-gai Council under council's Tree Preservation Order for the pruning of the trees to half their current height. The respondents' preferred position is to leave them as they are. However, they stated that if the Court ordered pruning or removal they have received advice from an arborist that the cost of any work would be much cheaper if access was available from the applicants' property. 4The applicants are reluctant to allow any heavy vehicles onto their driveway as they have had it repaved.