Peters vs Thomas [2018] NSWLEC 1205

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Peters vs Thomas [2018] NSWLEC 1205 Hearing dates: 19 April 2018 Date of orders: 19 April 2018 Decision date: 19 April 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas, AC Decision: The application is upheld. See orders at paragraph 35 Catchwords: TREES [DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS] : Bamboo hedge, overshadowing, obstruction of views Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Ball v Bahramali and Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Clancy v Bell [2011] NSWLEC 1017 Lynch v Stapleton [2018] NSWLEC 1008 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Malinda Rutter Peters (Applicant) Robert Thomas (1st Respondent) Kyrenia Thomas (2nd Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Dr J Smith, counsel (Respondents)

Solicitors: Malinda Rutter Peters, Litigant in Person (Applicant) Dentons Australia Pty Ltd (Respondents) File Number(s): 17/327857 Publication restriction: No

Extempore Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application pursuant to s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by Malinda Rutter Peters, the owner of a property in Vaucluse (the site) against Robert and Kyrenia Thomas, the owners of trees growing on a neighbouring property. 2. The applicant seeks orders for the trimming of a row of Bambusa sp (Clumping Bamboo) to "a non-offensive height that doesn't block views or sunlight and to the height of a two storey building around 7 metres". The hedge is to be kept trimmed to that height and the respondents are to pay costs of representation. 3. These orders are sought on the basis that the trees severely obstruct sunlight to 9 windows and severely obstruct views "over the harbour to Mosman" from 3 windows of the applicant's dwelling and from a concrete car parking area. 4. The respondents do not wish to prune the trees as they value them for the privacy they afford their property. They contend that the hedge does not severely obstruct sunlight to a window of the applicant's dwelling, nor severely obstruct any view from the applicant's dwelling.