NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Robertson & anor v Krabman & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1280 Hearing dates: 23 June 2016 Date of orders: 05 July 2016 Decision date: 05 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: The application in its entirety is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Damage to property; Hedge – obstruction of sunlight Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152 Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Trevor and Amanda Robertson (Applicants) Peter and Matilda Krabman (Respondents) Representation: Applicants: Ms A Hemmings (Barrister) Respondents: Dr P Krabman (Litigant in person)
Solicitors: Applicants: Hones Lawyers File Number(s): 182509 of 2016
Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: The applicants have applied under both s 7 Part 2 and s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) for orders seeking removal of bamboo from the respondents' property within 3m of the common boundary, and the payment, by the respondents, of $6,894.00 for rectification of damage to their property they contend has been caused by the bamboo. 2. The respondents' property is to the north of the applicants' property. Along part of the southern boundary of the respondents' property is a row of bamboo. 3. The applicants contend that the bamboo has caused damaged to their dwelling and their lawn and could cause damage to a drain and the fence. They also claim that the bamboo severely obstructs sunlight to windows of their dwelling.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate