Drewett v Best

Drewett v Best is a case concerning a dispute over the height of trees on adjoining properties. The applicant, Mr Drewett, sought an order for the reduction of height of certain trees on the adjoining properties. The respondent, Mr Pearce, argued that the application was unclear and did not specify the trees in question. The matter was before the Court, which had to decide whether the trees on the adjoining properties were obstructing sunlight to Mr Drewett's dwelling and, if so, whether an order should be made to remedy or restrain the obstruction.

The primary legal issues were whether the trees in question met the criteria for the application of Section 14A of the relevant legislation, and whether the obstruction caused by the trees was severe enough to warrant an order under Section 14D. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the severity of the obstruction and whether his interest in having the obstruction removed outweighed any other considerations.

The Court found that the 6 x Tecomaria capensis and the 4 x Lillypilly met the requirements of Section 14A(1) as they were planted to form a hedge and had a height of at least 2.5 metres. However, the Court was not satisfied that the trees in question were severely obstructing sunlight to Mr Drewett's dwelling as he had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the severity of the obstruction. The Court also noted that the generally south-westerly orientation of the windows in question lessened the impact of any obstruction caused by the trees.

The Court dismissed the application as it was not satisfied that the trees in question were severely obstructing sunlight to Mr Drewett's dwelling or any view from his dwelling. The Court emphasised the importance of providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate the severity of the obstruction and the need for the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed to outweigh any other considerations.