Murray v Li [2018] NSWLEC 1209

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v Li [2018] NSWLEC 1209 Hearing dates: 23 March 2018 Date of orders: 20 April 2018 Decision date: 20 April 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedge; obstruction of views; whether the obstruction is severe; adjoining land. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: De Zylva & anor v Staas & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1242 Dive v Lin & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1348 Dive v Lin and Liu [2017] NSWLEC 153 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 P. Baer Investments Pty Limited v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 128 Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alison Murray (Applicant) Man Li (Respondent) Representation: A Murray, litigant in person (Applicant) D Tyrrell, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors McKees (Respondent) File Number(s): 328876 of 2017

Judgment

Background 1. When the Murrays purchased their Mosman property in 2005, they enjoyed views of Sydney Harbour out to the heads, views of bays and of the broad landscape. A large dwelling on a property on the other side of their street blocked a significant part of their water view. Trees around the boundary of that property gradually grew taller and contributed to the view obstruction. 2. In 2013 when Ms Li bought the property across the street, the Murrays introduced themselves. They later discussed the trees with the Li family, mostly with Ms Li's daughter, raising their concerns about the views. After the Murrays asked for the trees to be pruned, three trees were pruned lightly, leaving some other trees taller than the pruned trees. When it became clear that Ms Li would not prune the trees any further, Ms Murray unsuccessfully sought mediation with Ms Li. 3. Ms Murray ('the applicant') then applied under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) ('the Trees Act'), seeking orders for the trees to be pruned to a height of 3.5 metres and maintained at that height. 4. Ms Li ('the respondent') has offered to prune the trees to a height of 6 metres. At the hearing, Ms Murray clarified that she would accept all trees being pruned to a height of 4.5 metres. 5. Ms Murray filed an affidavit explaining communications with Ms Li. She supplied a report from an arborist, Jack Williams. 6. Ms Murray also filed at the Court a statement from Geoff Smith, a licenced real estate agent. The statement included an agreement to be bound by the expert witness Code of Conduct in Schedule 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and so purported to be an expert witness statement. I did not accept this statement into evidence on the following grounds: it was written two days before the hearing, well after the filing date given in the Court's directions for the applicant's evidence; it showed no reasonings or methodology for reaching the financial impact supposedly caused by the hedge to the value of the Murrays' property; and it did not include the qualifications of the author. 7. Ms Li supplied a report from an arborist, Ross Jackson, who attended, and gave evidence at, the hearing.