Farrugia v Barrett

[2025] NSWLEC 1710

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Farrugia v Barrett [2025] NSWLEC 1710

Hearing dates:

16 September 2025

Date of orders:

16 September 2025

Decision date:

16 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The Pt 2 application is refused.

(2) The Pt 2A application is refused.

(3) The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – whether neighbouring trees have caused or are likely to cause damage – Pt 2A application – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether the obstruction is severe – direct sunlight

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 7, 10, 12, 14B, 14E, 14F

Cases Cited:

Drewett v Best [2010] NSWLEC 1305

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Paul Farrugia (First Applicant)
Monica Farrugia (Second Applicant)
Ben Barrett (First Respondent)
Lucy Barrett (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
P Farrugia (Self-represented) (First Applicant)
M Farrugia (Self-represented) (Second Applicant)
B Barrett (Self-represented) (First Respondent)
L Barrett (Self-represented) (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/262882

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: Paul and Monica Farrugia (the applicants) have applied to the Court for orders pursuant to both s 7 (Pt 2) and s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Trees Act). Their application concerns a row of 14 lilly pillies and one viburnum on the adjoining property to their north owned by Ben and Lucy Barrett (the respondents). Their Pt 2 application is made on the basis that the trees are likely to cause damage to their property. Their Pt 2A application is made on the basis that the trees obstruct sunlight to their windows and a view from their dwelling. They want the trees removed.

2. The hearing took place onsite, allowing me to observe the trees and both properties and to hear submissions from the parties, who were self-represented. I rely on my own arboricultural expertise and experience in making this decision, along with material filed by the parties.

Framework for this decision

3. Relevant issues to be determined in these proceedings are:

• Whether the applicants have made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents and given the required notice of the application: ss 10(1)(a), and 14E(1)(a) of the Trees Act.

• Whether the Court can be satisfied that the trees have caused, or are likely to cause, damage to the applicants’ property: s 10(2)(a) Trees Act.

• How consideration of the relevant matters at s 12 of the Trees Act should influence any orders to be made under the Pt 2 application.

• Whether trees are severely obstructing sunlight to, or a view from, the applicants’ dwelling, and whether their interests in remedying the obstruction outweigh reasons to avoid interfering with the trees: s 14E(2) Trees Act.

• How consideration of the relevant matters at s 14F of the Trees Act should influence any orders to…