Colbert v Adams (Civil Dispute)

In the case of Colbert v Adams (Civil Dispute), the plaintiff, Mr Colbert, brought a claim against his neighbour, Mr Adams, for private nuisance and trespass to land. The dispute arose after Mr Adams trimmed hedges along the shared fence, causing substantial and unreasonable impact on Mr Colbert's privacy and enjoyment of his property. The case was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

The primary legal issues for the tribunal to decide were whether Mr Adams' actions in trimming the hedge constituted a nuisance and trespass to land, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court examined the extent to which Mr Adams' actions were reasonable in the circumstances, considering the principle that a person is entitled to remove vegetation overhanging their property without notice, but the removal must not go beyond what is reasonably necessary.

The tribunal found that Mr Adams had gone beyond what was reasonably necessary to remove the nuisance caused by the overhanging hedge. He had retrimmed sections of hedge that were no longer overhanging the fence and cut the hedge well past the fence line and at a steep backward angle, causing unsightly damage. The evidence supported the claim that the hedge trimming had a substantial and unreasonable impact on Mr Colbert's privacy and enjoyment of his premises. The tribunal dismissed Mr Adams' counterclaim.

The tribunal ordered that Mr Adams pay Mr Colbert $3,683, comprising $3,500 in damages and $183 in tribunal filing fees. The payment was to be made by 4pm on 4 November 2025. The tribunal also dismissed Mr Adams' counterclaim.