Macourt v Baudinet & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1631

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Macourt v Baudinet & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1631 Hearing dates: 26 October 2016 Date of orders: 23 December 2016 Decision date: 23 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedge; obstruction of views; applicant made reasonable effort; trees not planted so as to form a hedge; view obstruction not severe; application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Charles Ross Macourt (Applicant) Bruce Warren Baudinet (First Respondent) Lindsay Anne Baudinet (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Andrew Pickles SC (Applicant) Janet McKelvey (Respondents)

Solicitors: Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Applicant) Andrews & Holm Lawyers (Respondents) File Number(s): 166950 of 2016

Judgment

Background 1. The hearing for this matter took place onsite, in Birchgrove, by the water. At one point, Ms McKelvey, Counsel for the respondents, described the vista before us as a "cracker of a view". Nobody disagreed. 2. The parties to this matter have lived here now for some time. Dr Macourt ('the applicant') now feels that neighbouring trees have grown and obstruct the view he enjoyed earlier. He has applied to the Court pursuant to Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') seeking orders for removal of a number of neighbouring trees, or if not removal, that they be pruned, to restore his access to views. 3. The Baudinets ('the respondents') own the neighbouring property. They enjoy their garden, as well as their views. They have pruned some of the trees in the past, but are unwilling to remove them. 4. The parties reached an agreement some 23 years ago regarding the height of the boundary wall extending from the rear of their dwellings toward the water. The purpose of this agreement was for Dr Macourt to retain access to views, including those of the Harbour Bridge and large parts of the harbour. Dr Macourt relies in part on this agreement to support his ongoing access to those views.