Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: El Khoury v Hajjar [2021] NSWLEC 1481 Hearing dates: 13 April 2021 Date of orders: 13 April 2021 Decision date: 13 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The application is dismissed.
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – is the obstruction of sunlight severe – risk of injury related to illness, allergy or similar medical condition – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 7, 9, 10, 12, 14A, 14B, 14E, 14F
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - Expert Witness Code of Conduct, Schedule 7
Cases Cited: Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Holland v Bell [2017] NSWLEC 1322
Hurditch v Staines [2008] NSWLEC 1351
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rose El Khoury (Applicant)
Danielle Hajjar (Respondent)Representation: J Khoury (Litigant in person - Agent) (Applicant)
Solicitors:
S Hajjar (Solicitor) (Respondent)
The Saljar Group Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/290594 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.
Background
-
Mrs Rose El Khoury, the applicant, owns a property in Roselands, which was purchased in 2008. A new dwelling was constructed in 2013, replacing that which existed prior. Mrs El Khoury shares a rear boundary with the respondent, Mrs Danielle Hajjar.
-
A row of five Photinia and one Schefflera trees (the trees) are growing in the respondent’s rear yard, roughly parallel with, and adjacent to the common boundary, along which a fence, approximately 1.8 metre high, separates the properties. The boundary runs from slightly north-west of north to south-east of south. An additional three Photinia’s extend the respondent’s aforementioned row of trees further southward, but these border the applicant’s neighbours’ property.
-
The applicant claims that some of the east facing windows of her dwelling receive limited sunlight as a result of the trees, particularly during mornings. She has submitted an application with the Land and Environment Court (LEC), pursuant to s 14B of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (“the Trees Act”), seeking orders for Mrs Hajjar to remove or prune the hedge, so as to restore direct sunlight to her windows, and rooms beyond.
-
At a directions hearing on 7 April, 2021, the Registrar granted the applicant’s Agent, Mr John El Khoury, leave to file an additional late Part 2 Application, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees Act, seeking orders to prevent injury to any person, as a result of the trees. The applicant’s Agent served this Part 2 Application, on the evening of 7 April, 2021. In allowing this late application, the Registrar also granted leave for Mrs Hajjar to submit an additional response to the LEC.
-
Directions of the Court, dated 22 February, 2021, appear to foreshadow this Part 2 application, as they include Schedule B, which outlines
“Supplementary directions for…
Continue reading El Khoury v Hajjar
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- El Khoury v Hajjar [2021] NSWLEC 1481
- Case
- [2021] NSWLEC 1481
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically concerning the eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship. The applicant argued that the respondent did not meet the residency requirements as stipulated in the Act and Regulations. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision, which found the respondent eligible for citizenship, was made in accordance with the legislative provisions and whether there were any errors in the decision-making process.
In its reasoning, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented by the parties. It found that the Minister had correctly applied the relevant legislative criteria in assessing the respondent's eligibility. The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and that there were no grounds for the applicant to successfully challenge the respondent's eligibility for citizenship. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, affirming the Minister's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) 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.