Langer v Slezak & anor; Langer v Cohn [2015] NSWLEC 1031

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Langer v Slezak & anor; Langer v Cohn [2015] NSWLEC 1031 Hearing dates: 26 February 2015 Date of orders: 26 February 2015 Decision date: 26 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: Orders by consent: see paragraph 14. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedges; obstruction of views; orders by consent; tree removal and replanting. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 21025 of 2014 Sylvia Langer (Applicant) Peter Slezak and Julianna Slezak (Respondents)

21026 of 2014 Sylvia Langer (Applicant) Steven Cohn (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Patrick O'Brien, Solicitor (Applicant, both matters) Jacinta Reid, Barrister (Respondents in both matters)

Solicitors: Harris & Company (Applicant, both matters) Baron & Associates (Respondents in both matters) File Number(s): 21025 of 201421026 of 2014

Judgment

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

Background 1. When Ms Langer ("the applicant") and her family moved into their Castlecrag home in 1974, they had largely uninterrupted views across properties to their north and northeast. Cypress trees on two adjoining properties have subsequently grown up into those views. Ms Langer has made two applications to the Land and Environment Court pursuant to section 14B of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ("the Trees Act") seeking orders for the trees to be reduced significantly in height. 2. At the outset of the hearing the parties' representatives requested time to see if some agreement could be reached. Mr O'Brien, for the applicant, and Ms Reid, for the respondents in both matters, then proposed consent orders for the trees to be removed and replaced with new plantings. 3. Before making any orders, even those by consent of the parties, the Court must be satisfied that the jurisdiction of the Trees Act is enlivened and that, considering a range of discretionary matters, the orders are appropriate. Therefore the parties took me to observe both hedges and then the views from the applicant's dwelling, and the extent of any view obstruction.