King v Silcocks & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1297

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: King v Silcocks & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1297 Hearing dates: 25 October 2012 Decision date: 25 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of sunlight; obstruction not severe; application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Hinde v Anderson and anor [2009] NSWLEC 1148 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Brendan King (Applicant)

Mr Mark Silcocks (First respondent) Ms Dale McCarthy (Second respondent) Representation: Mr Brendan King (Applicant in person)

Mr Mark Silcocks (Respondent in person)

File Number(s): 20811 of 2012

Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1COMMISSIONER: Mr King has owned a residential property in Double Bay since 1996. He says that trees have grown up on a neighbouring property and now obstruct sunlight to windows of his dwelling. He has applied to the Court under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ("the Act") seeking orders for removal of one tree and pruning of six others to a height of 2.3 metres. 2Mr Silcocks and Ms McCarthy own the land on which the trees grow. They had six of the trees pruned about one month ago. They wish to retain the trees and avoid further pruning as they value visual screening between properties provided by the trees. 3For orders to be made under Part 2A of the Act, the Court must first be satisfied, at s 14A(1), that the trees are planted so as to form a hedge; and that they rise to a height of at least 2.5 metres. Secondly, the Court must be satisfied, according to s 14E(2)(a)(i), that the trees are severely obstructing sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling (this application does not concern views). Finally, according to s 14E(2)(b), the Court must also be satisfied that the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that it outweighs any reasons not to interfere with the trees. 4The hearing took place onsite, allowing observations of the trees and of the potential for them to obstruct sunlight to windows highlighted in the application.