Liddell v Jones [2014] NSWLEC 1183

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liddell v Jones [2014] NSWLEC 1183 Hearing dates: 25 August 2014 Decision date: 05 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedges; views; sunlight; whether trees that were not planted to form a hedge can become part of a hedge; obstruction not severe; application dismissed Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Interpretation Act 1987 Cases Cited: Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Van Hoorn v Sullivan & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1111 Texts Cited: Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (2009) Second Reading Speech, NSW Legislative Council,18 May 2010 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kenneth Liddell (Applicant) Garry Jones (Respondent) Representation: John Fisher Business Lawyers (Applicant) Bartier Perry (Respondent)

Mr T To (Applicant) Ms M Taylor, solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 20376 of 2014

Judgment

The application 1Among trees and landscaping, residential dwellings project from a north-facing hill in Sydney's Bayview, overlooking Pittwater. Mr Liddell (the applicant) owns and lives at a dwelling with a northerly outlook that includes Pittwater and Scotland Island, and to the northeast Refuge Cove, various headlands and more. 2Mr Jones (the respondent) owns the property to the north of Mr Liddell. After he purchased it in 2011 Mr Jones planted bamboo along part of the common boundary with Mr Liddell's property, with the aim of gaining some privacy. Two Tuckeroo trees were already growing along that boundary. 3Mr Liddell has applied to the Court pursuant to section 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act), wanting the Court to order pruning of the trees to remove a view obstruction and regular pruning to prevent future the view obstruction. He wants the trees maintained at a maximum height equivalent to floor level on the second level of his dwelling. Mr Liddell also claims the trees obstruct his solar access, but says if the trees are pruned to restore views, that will also remove any sunlight obstruction. 4Mr Jones wants to maintain privacy but has offered to prune the trees on the following conditions: * that they only be pruned and maintained at around the height of the balcony railing on the second level of Mr Liddell's dwelling; * that pruning only occurs once a year, with the costs shared between the parties; * that if they are to be pruned more frequently that would be at Mr Liddell's expense; and * that he should only require permission to access Mr Liddell's property for the purpose of carrying out the works in the first instance, thereafter assuming ongoing permission for access.