Bentley v Symonds; Ghenzer v Symonds

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bentley & anor v Symonds & anor; Ghenzer & ors v Symonds & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1336
Hearing dates:23 November 2011
Decision date: 23 November 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

Applications dismissed

Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views and sunlight; what constitutes a hedge; ambient light is not sunlight;
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited: Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
McLaren v Lewis [2011] NSWLEC 1170
Drewett v Best [2010] NSWLEC 1305
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: D and S Bentley (Applicants - first matter)
C, N and G Ghenzer (Applicants - second matter)
S and R Symonds (Respondents - both matters)
Representation: Applicants: Mr D Bentley (Litigant in person - first matter; agent - second matter)
Respondents: Mr S Symonds (Litigant in person - both matters)
File Number(s):10921 of 2011; 10925 of 2011

Judgment

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

  1. COMMISSIONER: These are two applications pursuant to s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by two owners of properties in the same unit block against the owners of trees growing on an adjoining property in Mosman. The applications are made on the basis of obstruction of sunlight to windows of the dwellings and to views from the dwellings.

  1. The applicants are seeking orders for pruning or removal of two Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) trees, identified as T2 and T3 in the applications; and the selective pruning of T4, a mature Camphor Laurel, T5, a tree noted as a Linden but identified on site as a Celtis sp (possibly C. occidentalis (Hackberry)), and T6 a Jacaranda. Tree 1 on the plan is a Camphor Laurel to the north of the Kaffir Plums, however no orders are sought with respect to this tree.

The trees

  1. The trees are growing along the eastern boundary of the respondents' property in sections of a retained garden bed that steps down the relatively steep slope from the street to the north and the dwelling to the south. There are a series of sandstone rock shelves and small terraces. At the southern end of the respondents' property, beyond the dwelling, is a large and mature Liquidambar. Between the Liquidambar and T6 is a very large Brachychiton discolor (Lacebark) growing on the property to the east between the boundary fence and the adjoining dwelling.

  1. According to the respondents' material, the Kaffir Plums were planted in 1996 in accordance with development consent conditions for an inclinator. The trees are approximately 2.5m apart.

  1. Tree 4 is a large and mature Camphor Laurel of unknown provenance and age. In 2010, Mosman Council granted permission for several large branches to be removed from this tree. The majority of the branches were removed from the eastern side of the tree that overhung the common property of the applicants' unit block as well as…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bentley v Symonds; Ghenzer v Symonds and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 1336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bentley and Ghenzer, the plaintiffs, brought claims against Symonds, the defendant, seeking orders to compel Symonds to hand over documents and provide information relevant to their claims for damages. Bentley and Ghenzer alleged that Symonds had engaged in fraudulent and deceptive conduct, and sought relief under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The primary issue for the court was whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated a sufficient connection to the documents sought and whether the relief requested was necessary for the fair and expeditious resolution of their claims.

The court considered the principles governing discovery of documents and the inherent jurisdiction to make orders for the fair and expeditious resolution of proceedings. The plaintiffs needed to show a sufficient connection between the documents and their claims, and that the documents were necessary to enable them to effectively plead and prosecute their claims. The court examined the particulars of claim and affidavit evidence provided by the parties to determine if the plaintiffs had made out a case for the relief sought. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the necessary connection or necessity for the relief, and dismissed the applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications 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.