Curtis v Pranatajaya

[2024] NSWLEC 1837

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Curtis v Pranatajaya [2024] NSWLEC 1837

Hearing dates:

20 November 2024

Date of orders:

23 December 2024

Decision date:

23 December 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The application is refused.

(2) The exhibits are returned, other than exhibit A.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2A application regarding high hedges – neighbouring palms – whether the palms form hedges – obstruction of views – whether the obstruction is severe – balancing of interests

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14D, 14E, 14F

Cases Cited:

Arnold v Persson [2022] NSWLEC 1270

Barnes v Loveridge; Unicomb v Loveridge [2016] NSWLEC 1108

Black v Jeihooni (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 13

Johnson v Angus (2012) 190 LGERA 334; [2012] NSWLEC 192

King v Moore [2023] NSWLEC 1654

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

Unsworth v Hennessy [2024] NSWLEC 82

Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012

Texts Cited:

Woollahra Council Development Control Plan 2015

Woollahra Tree Management Policy

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

John Simon Curtis (Applicant)
Winardi Pranatajaya (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
F Berglund (Applicant)
A Cornish (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mathas Law (Applicant)
Tebbutt Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/317004

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

Background to the application

1. Westward views from Darling Point take in the Harbour Bridge to the northwest and Rushcutters Bay to the southwest, with Sydney Harbour and sails of the Opera House between. Woollahra Municipal Council (Council) recognises the value of the views to local property owners – Council prunes the fig trees along New Beach Road to maintain views over, and view corridors between, those trees.

2. A dispute has arisen between Darling Point neighbours John Curtis (the applicant) and Winardi Pranatajaya (the respondent) over palm trees growing on Mr Pranatajaya’s property. Mr Curtis’ property is to the east and upslope of Mr Pranatajaya’s property. Mr Curtis claims that the palms now obstruct views he has enjoyed since purchasing his property in 1993. He claims also that the palms breach a covenant on the property title (the covenant) restricting the height of items on Mr Pranatajaya’s property.

3. Mr Curtis seeks orders from the Court for Mr Pranatajaya to remove the trees, and an order allowing Mr Curtis’ contractors to remove the trees at the respondent’s cost should Mr Pranatajaya not remove them within three months. He sought a further order that the Court makes a declaration limiting the height of any plant on Mr Pranatajaya’s property to the height restriction described in the covenant.

4. Mr Pranatajaya disputes that his palms cause a severe obstruction of views from Mr Curtis’ dwelling.

5. The final hearing took place onsite, with Ms Berglund and Mr Cornish of Counsel for the applicant and the respondent respectively. The Court observed the trees and relevant parts of both properties. No experts were required at the hearing. Tendered evidence included: the application and claim details; an affidavit sworn by Mr Curtis…