Lau v Miller; Karib v Miller; Eriksson v Miller [2013] NSWLEC 1212

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lau v Miller; Karib v Miller; Eriksson v Miller [2013] NSWLEC 1212 Hearing dates: 24 October 2013 Decision date: 24 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The three applications are dismissed Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) - hedge - obstruction of views - no severe obstruction of views at time of hearing - applications dismissed Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Hinde v Anderson & anor [2009] NSWLEC 1148 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: APPLICANTS Matthew Lau (20619 of 2013) Francois Karib (20620 of 2013) Trevor Eriksson (20621 of 2013)

RESPONDENT Duncan Miller (all three matters) Representation: APPLICANTS Matthew Lau [litigant in person 20619 of 2013; agent for 20620 and 20621 of 2013]

RESPONDENT Damian Ward [solicitor] Mills Oakley Lawyers File Number(s): 20619 of 2013 20620 of 2013 20621 of 2013

Judgment

Background 1This tree dispute involves three applications from three separate applicants. The applicants' properties are in a row, fronting a residential street in Castlecrag. The three applicants (from south to north) are Mr Eriksson, Mr Lau and Mr Karib. They all have concerns about sunlight to, and views from, their properties being obstructed, or becoming obstructed, by trees on an adjoining property. 2Mr Miller owns the property to the west of the three applicants. His dwelling occupies the western part of his property; a tennis court takes up much of the eastern part. The land rises to the east. Between the tennis court and the eastern boundary, in a narrow raised garden bed, is a row of thirteen palm trees interplanted with twelve Lilly Pillies. 3Mr Lau acted as agent for the other two applicants at the hearing.