Trees Obstructing Views Decision Dismissed by Land and Environment Court
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant must demonstrate that trees on adjoining land severely obstruct views from their dwelling to obtain an order for intervention.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The trees on the respondent's properties formed a hedge, satisfying a legal requirement for the application.
- Trees 3-6 on the first respondent's property did not severely obstruct any view from the applicant's property.
- No tree in the first hedge on the second respondent's property severely obstructed any of the desired views.
- Tree 1 on the first respondent's property did not severely obstruct any view.
- Tree 2 on the first respondent's property provided privacy for both properties, outweighing the limited view obstruction.
- Ordering intervention for trees 6 and 7 on the second respondent's property would have little use due to other palms in the view line.
- The desired view to Kogarah Bay and the river was obstructed by many elements other than the trees on the respondents' properties.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicants' argument that trees 1 and 2 on the first respondent's property did not form a hedge was rejected.
- The applicants' argument that individual palms and strelitzia could not form a hedge was rejected.
- The applicants' contention that their expectation of retaining views outweighed privacy concerns was not accepted.
- The applicants' argument that the view was severely obstructed by the first respondent's hedge was not fully accepted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether trees on adjoining land were severely obstructing views from the applicant's dwelling, requiring pruning.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, specifically sections 14A(1) and 14B, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the trees were severely obstructing the views from the applicant's dwelling.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the trees on adjoining land are severely obstructing views before applying for an order for pruning.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included the inspection of the views from the applicant's dwelling and the identification of the trees on adjoining land.