Alameddine v Jones

[2013] NSWLEC 1021

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Alameddine v Jones [2013] NSWLEC 1021

Hearing dates:

17 January 2013

Decision date:

06 February 2013

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

(1) The application is upheld in part.

(2) During June every year, beginning 2013, the respondents are to prune, or engage a suitable gardener or arborist to prune, the 21 Lilly Pilly trees forming a hedge along their boundary as follows:

· Reduce the height of trees along the upper section of fence to a height no greater than 0.7 metres above the top of the aluminium screen.

· Reduce the height of trees along the lower section of fence to a height no greater than 1.0 metre above the top of the aluminium screen.

· Reduce the height of trees between the two sections described above so that their tops form a straight line between the tops of those two sections.

(3) The applicant is to allow access to his property for the works in (2) to be carried out during normal working hours on reasonable notice (two working days).

Catchwords:

TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views; pruning ordered

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Cases Cited:

Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Mr Obeid Alameddine (Applicant)

Mr Peter Jones (First respondent)
Ms Yuki Jones (Second respondent)

Representation:

Mr David Morgan Jones (Solicitor for the applicant)

Mr James Antonenas (Solicitor for the respondents)

File Number(s):

21011 of 2012

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Mr Obeid Alameddine has lived at his East Hills property with his family since December 2009. His neighbours, Peter and Yuki Jones ("the Jones"), have lived at their property since 2005. The relationship between the neighbours has been discordant since early 2010. Affidavits of both parties reveal a history of hostile communications, often across the common boundary between the rear gardens of the two properties. In February 2011 Mr Jones planted a row of Lilly Pilly trees along this boundary to create a screen for privacy. Mr Alameddine now claims those trees obstruct his views to the Georges River and the canal nearer their properties. He has applied to the Court under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ("the Act") seeking orders for the trees to be pruned so as to restore the views he once enjoyed. The Jones wish to retain the privacy afforded by the trees.

1. Under Part 2A of the Act, when an applicant claims that trees are obstructing a view, the Court must be satisfied: firstly, that the trees form a hedge according to s 14A; secondly, that they severely obstruct a view from the applicant's dwelling according to s 14E(2)(a)(ii); and, finally, that the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that it outweighs any reasons not to interfere with the trees. The Court is obliged to consider a range of matters outlined in s 14F before making any orders.

The onsite view

1. The hearing took place onsite,…