Jones & anor v Stephenson [2017] NSWLEC 1028

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones & anor v Stephenson [2017] NSWLEC 1028 Hearing dates: 17 January 2017 Date of orders: 30 January 2017 Decision date: 30 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes AC Decision: See [45] Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS]: Damage to property; compensation; Hedge – obstruction of sunlight Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael & Michele Jones (Applicants) Ross Stephenson (Respondent) Representation: Applicants: Michael & Michele Jones (Litigants in person) Respondent: Ross Stephenson (Litigant in person) File Number(s): 341142 of 2016

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: The applicants, who own a property in Woodford, have applied under both s 7 Part 2 and s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) for the following orders (as summarised from the Class 2 Application): * inspection and, if necessary, repair of a retaining wall and water feature including the severing of any roots that may be found or the removal of all trees within 20 feet of the wall; * the pruning of trees to a height of 2.5m to allow winter sun onto their house and sunlight to windows. * All work is to be at the respondent's expense [I assume this to include reimbursement of the money spent on repairs to a water feature – estimated to be $500]. * Reimbursement of court filing fees 1. The applicants would also accept the installation of a root barrier on the respondent's property between the wall and the trees. 2. In regards to the requested order for the filing fees, Commissioners of the Court do not have the jurisdiction to order payment of legal costs, costs of expert reports, application fees and the like. If sought, claims for these costs must be made by a Notice of Motion, which is heard and determined by a Judge or Registrar of the Court. 3. The trees in question are a row of trees along the respondent's southern boundary and comprise: Photinia (T1), Leyland Cypress (T2, T3, T4, T6, T7, T8), Lillypilly (T5), and Weeping Willow (T9). The trees are wholly on the respondent's property, which is to the north of the applicants' land. There are other trees along the common boundary that are not part of the application.