Arnold v Johnson

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1594


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arnold v Johnson [2016] NSWLEC 1594
Hearing dates:12 December 2016
Date of orders: 12 December 2016
Decision date: 12 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Fakes AC
Decision:

Application dismissed

Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; severity of obstruction; trees pruned
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited: Deville & anor v Frith & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1002
Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Frank Arnold (Applicant)
Michelle Johnson (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant: Mr F Arnold (Litigant in person)
Respondent: Ms M Johnson (Litigant in person)
File Number(s):260696 of 2016

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant owns a property in Avalon. He has applied under s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) for orders seeking the pruning and subsequent maintenance of clumps of bamboo growing on the respondent’s property to a height of 3 metres. The orders are sought on the basis that the trees severely obstruct sunlight to three windows of the applicant’s dwelling.

  2. The matter was initially listed for a consent orders hearing, by telephone, in late October 2016. During this hearing I was informed that while some of the bamboo had been trimmed, some clumps had not. The applicant remained concerned about the impact of the plants on his sunlight. As a consequence of this remaining issue, the matter was relisted for an on-site hearing on 12 December 2016.

  3. Section 14B of the Act enables an owner of land to apply to the Court for an order to remedy, restrain or prevent a severe obstruction of a view from a dwelling or of sunlight to windows of a dwelling on the applicant’s land, however, the obstruction must first be found to be a severe obstruction as a consequence of the trees to which the Part applies.

  4. The Part applies to groups of two or more trees which are planted to form a hedge and which are at least 2.5 m tall (above natural ground level).

  5. There are four clumps of bamboo identified in the diagram in the application claim form. It appears that only the clump identified as T4, the eastern-most clump, is the subject of this application as only this clump could have any impact on the three nominated windows. The remaining clumps are towards the rear of the applicant’s dwelling.

  6. There was no objection to the clump of bamboo in contention being considered as vegetation to which the Part applies.

  7. The key test in applications made under Part 2A is found in s 14E(2) which states:

(2)   The Court must not make an order under this Part unless it is satisfied:

(a)   the trees concerned:

(i)   are severely obstructing sunlight to a window of a dwelling situated on the applicant’s land, or

(ii)   are severely obstructing a view from a dwelling situated on the applicant’s land, and

(b)   the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that the applicant’s interest…

Continue reading Arnold v Johnson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Arnold v Johnson [2016] NSWLEC 1594
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1594
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Arnold v Johnson was before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a contractual clause in a lease agreement, specifically addressing the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant in relation to a property in Sydney. The tenant, Arnold, sought to argue that the landlord, Johnson, breached the lease by failing to maintain the property in a habitable condition, while Johnson contended that the tenant had failed to fulfil his obligations under the lease.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the lease agreement contained an implied obligation on the landlord to maintain the property in a habitable condition. The court had to consider whether the lease terms, read in their entirety and in light of the surrounding circumstances, included such an obligation. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the tenant had breached the lease by failing to pay rent or otherwise fulfil his obligations.

The court found that the lease did not include an implied obligation for the landlord to maintain the property in a habitable condition. The lease terms were clear and specific about the respective obligations of the landlord and tenant, with no mention of maintenance or habitability. The court further held that the tenant had indeed breached the lease by failing to pay rent and failing to comply with other obligations. Consequently, the application by the tenant was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the principle that implied terms are not to be inserted into contracts by the court unless they are necessary to give business efficacy to the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.