Bazett and McFadden v Bonser

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1668


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bazett & McFadden v Bonser [2020] NSWLEC 1668
Hearing dates: 1 December 2020
Date of orders: 1 December 2020
Decision date: 01 December 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Galwey AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The application is granted.

(2) Within 60 days of the date of these orders the respondents are to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), with all appropriate insurances, to remove the four cypress trees forming a hedge along their western boundary, to no more than 50 cm above ground level. The works are to be done in accordance with the 2016 Safe Work Australia Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work.

(3) The respondents are to give the applicants at least 2 days’ notice of the works.

(4) The applicants are to allow any access required to their property for the purpose of cleaning up debris.

(5) Any further hedge planting along the respondents’ western boundary is to be of a species that grows to no more than 4 metres in height at maturity.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – neighbouring hedge – cypress – obstruction of views – whether the obstruction is severe – privacy and other benefits – burden of ongoing maintenance – orders run with the land

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Cases Cited:

McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280

Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140

White v Baird [2014] NSWLEC 1189

Texts Cited:

2016 Safe Work Australia ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Wendy Bazett (First Applicant)
Lyn McFadden (Second Applicant)
Keith Bonser (First Respondent)
Lindy Bonser (Second Respondent)
Representation: W Bazett (Litigant in Person) (First Applicant)
L McFadden (Litigant in Person) (Second Applicant)
K Bonser (Litigant in Person) (First Respondent)
L Bonser (Litigant in Person) (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/152638
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

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

Background to the application

  1. Wendy Bazett and Lynn McFadden (‘the applicants’) purchased a vacant property in Ulladulla in 2011. At that time, there was already a row of four young Leyland Cypress (‘the trees’) on the neighbouring property belonging to Keith Bonser and Lindy Bonser (‘the respondents’). Ms Bazett and Ms McFadden completed construction of their dwelling in 2018, at which time the cypress trees had grown, but they still had a distant ocean view across the top of the trees from their main bedroom and a work room on the upper level of their dwelling. Since then, the trees have reached more than 6 metres in height, forming a dense screen only some two metres from these windows and completely obscuring the horizon view. They asked the Bonsers to prune the trees. The Bonsers, wishing to retain privacy and other benefits provided by the trees, did not prune them.…

Continue reading Bazett and McFadden v Bonser

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bazett and McFadden v Bonser [2020] NSWLEC 1668
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1668
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bazett and McFadden brought an application against Bonser, seeking orders for the removal of a hedge of cypress trees that had been planted along the respondents’ western boundary. The applicants contended that the trees were causing nuisance by obstructing light and view, and by shedding leaves into their yard. The respondents opposed the application. The Local Court was asked to determine the appropriate relief to be granted, if any.

The central legal issue for the court to decide was whether the applicants were entitled to an order for the removal of the hedge. The court had to consider whether the hedge constituted a nuisance, and if so, whether the applicants were entitled to an order for its removal, or whether an alternative remedy, such as an injunction, was more appropriate. The court also needed to consider the appropriate terms of any order that might be made.

The court found that the hedge constituted a nuisance. The court held that the applicants were entitled to an order for the removal of the hedge, as opposed to an injunction, because the hedge had already been planted and removing it would not cause the respondents significant hardship. The court considered it appropriate to order the removal of the hedge to 50 cm above ground level, rather than its complete removal, because the applicants had not sought to remove the hedge entirely, and because the respondents had not argued that the hedge provided any significant benefit to them. The court also made orders regarding the timing of the works, the notice to be given, the requirement for the applicants to allow access to their property, and the species of any future hedge planting.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The application is granted.

(2) Within 60 days of the date of these orders the respondents are to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), with all appropriate insurances, to remove the four cypress trees forming a hedge along their western boundary, to no more than 50 cm above ground level. The works are to be done in accordance with the 2016 Safe Work Australia Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work.

(3) The respondents are to give the applicants at least 2 days’ notice of the works.

(4) The applicants are to allow any access required to their property for the purpose of cleaning up debris.

(5) Any further hedge planting along the respondents’ western boundary is to be of a species that grows to no more than 4 metres in height at maturity.

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.