Brown v Goodbury

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1199


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brown v Goodbury [2018] NSWLEC 1199
Hearing dates: 9 April 2018
Date of orders: 26 April 2018
Decision date: 26 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Adam AC
Decision:

The application is dismissed.

Catchwords: TREES: are all the trees part of a hedge – obstruction of views – obstruction not severe – effect of pruning on form and appearance of crepe myrtles
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Amendment Bill 2010
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
Hough v Rettenmaier [2010] NSWLEC 1354
Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192
Maynard v Mobbs [2011] NSWLEC 1416
McIntosh v Humphrey [2015] NSWLEC 1225
McKenzie v Selwood [2017] NSWLEC 1031
Salisbury v Harrison [2011] NSWLEC 1069
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140
Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Robert Michael Brown (Applicant)
Ian James Goodbury (First Respondent)
Undine Desiree Goodbury (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Brown (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Litigants in Person (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/384639
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. Extending southwards downslope from Turriell Point Road, Port Hacking, what was originally a large narrow block has been subdivided into a number of individual blocks, each containing a single residence. The residence of the respondents in this matter, Mr and Mrs Goodbury, is on the lowest of the blocks, reaching down to the foreshore of Little Turriell Bay. The residence of Mr Richard Brown, the applicant, is situated on the block immediately adjacent to, and uphill from, that of respondents. The properties have a north – south orientation.

  2. On the respondents’ property are 12 crepe myrtle trees, said by the applicant to constitute two (or more) high hedges that obstruct views of, and across, Port Hacking from his property.

  3. Crepe myrtles are generally small, and relatively compact, deciduous trees. There are a number of widely grown cultivars differing in flower colour and size. The older forms have been selected from Lagerstroemia indica but more recently hybrid Lagerstroemia indica x L.faurei have become available in the form of the Indian Summer series of cultivars. The plants the subject of the application are cultivar ‘Natchez’, which has white flowers. This is one of the smaller forms, but the estimates provided in information sheets from commercial nurseries are imprecise predictions as the achieved height can be strongly influenced by site conditions. The respondents suggest that their plants are growing under conditions of stress, due to the limited soil volumes in the planter beds affecting water availability and the high-temperature microclimate in summer so that it is unlikely that final height will be at the upper limit of predictions.

  4. The appearance of the trees at the time of the hearing lent some support to the stress hypothesis. A limited number of leaves towards the tips of branches were displaying deep red autumn coloration, but a large number were brown and had probably been adversely affected by high summer temperatures.

Continue reading Brown v Goodbury

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brown v Goodbury [2018] NSWLEC 1199
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brown v Goodbury involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Brown, and the defendant, Goodbury, before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged agreement made with the defendant for the sale of certain property. The defendant argued that no valid agreement existed and sought to have the matter dismissed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was a binding contract between the parties and, if so, whether it was enforceable. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the alleged agreement and whether the necessary elements of a contract were present, such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.

The court examined the communications between the parties and found that, while there were discussions about the sale of the property, there was no clear and unambiguous offer and acceptance that constituted a binding agreement. The court emphasised the need for certainty and specificity in contract formation, and concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the existence of a valid contract. Consequently, the application to enforce the alleged agreement was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is 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.