Perryman v Yemma [2014] NSWLEC 1177

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Perryman v Yemma [2014] NSWLEC 1177 Hearing dates: 26 August 2014 Decision date: 26 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedges; views; application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Atkinson v Matherson [2011] NSWLEC 1121 Ball v Bahramali & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Bowden & anor v Grayson & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1161 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Patricia Perryman (Applicant)

Matias Yemma (Respondent) Representation: Newhouse and Arnold Solicitors (Respondent)

Ms S Freedman, daughter and agent (Applicant) Mr D Newhouse, solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 20442 of 2014

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

The application 1Ms Perryman (the applicant) owns and lives in a residential unit in Wahroonga in Sydney's northern suburbs. Her unit is on the western side of the building with windows facing to the west. A hedge of six Leighton Green Cypress trees (×Cupressocyparis leylandii 'Leighton Green') grows on the property to her west. Concerned about the impact of the trees on her solar access and views, she has asked her neighbours, the Yemmas (Matias Yemma is the respondent), to prune the trees more severely than they currently prune them. The Yemmas wish to maintain the trees at their current height for privacy. 2Ms Perryman has applied to the Court pursuant to s 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) seeking orders for the trees to be pruned to no higher than 2.5 metres and thereafter maintained at that height, or for the trees to be removed. 3The hearing took place this afternoon on site. Ms Perryman's daughter, Ms Freedman, acted as her agent. Ms Freedman has no experience being a legal representative but presented her case thoroughly and thoughtfully. Mr Matias was represented by Mr Newhouse, solicitor. 4This decision was given on site following the hearing. I have dismissed the application, but not without careful thought and considerable sympathy for Ms Perryman's situation. Despite finding her concerns real and reasonable, I find that, within the framework of the Trees Act, no orders will be made. I am not satisfied that the obstruction of sunlight or a view, caused by the trees, is "severe". And even if I did find a severe obstruction exists, I am not satisfied that the obstruction has developed during Ms Perryman's occupancy, rather than being substantially present when she began occupying the dwelling in 2009.