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 2005Cases 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 1012Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Robert Michael Brown (Applicant)
Ian James Goodbury (First Respondent)
Undine Desiree Goodbury (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Brown (Applicant)
Litigants in Person (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/384639 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
- AGLC
- Brown v Goodbury [2018] NSWLEC 1199
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.