Cole v Pilowsky [2018] NSWLEC 1495

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cole v Pilowsky [2018] NSWLEC 1495 Hearing dates: 21 September 2018 Date of orders: 21 September 2018 Decision date: 21 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – hedges – obstruction of sunlight – consent orders – one tree not situated on adjoining land – one of respondents' two trees removed – no jurisdiction for orders Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christine Cole (Applicant) Paul Pilowsky (First Respondent) Eva Pilowsky (Second Respondent) Representation: Christine Cole, litigant in person (Applicant) Paul Pilowsky, litigant in person (Respondents) File Number(s): 2018/243543 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background 1. Christine Cole ('the applicant') filed an application with the Court pursuant to s 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) ('the Trees Act') seeking orders for three trees to be pruned on the basis that they obstruct sunlight to windows of her Lane Cove dwelling. She also sought a costs order for fees she incurred obtaining shadow diagrams. 2. Paul and Eva Pilowsky ('the respondents') own the neighbouring property on which two of the trees in the application grow. 3. After the application was filed, the parties agreed to consent orders for pruning three trees. Today's mention in Court was to establish whether those orders could be made by the Court and, if so, to make those orders. At the outset, Mr Pilowsky explained that one of the two trees on the respondents' land had been removed, and the other pruned to a height that removed the sunlight obstruction. Ms Cole still pressed for an order to maintain that tree, and others on the respondents' land, at a reduced height.