Gilroy v Arblaster

[2025] NSWLEC 1672

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Gilroy v Arblaster [2025] NSWLEC 1672

Hearing dates:

22 August 2025

Date of orders:

22 August 2025

Decision date:

22 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The application is granted to the extent of the following orders.

(2) Within 30 days of the date of these orders the respondent is to remove tree T4 (yucca).

(3) The exhibits are retained.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – numerous neighbouring trees – risk of damage – order to remove one tree – Pt 2A application – obstruction of sunlight and views – obstruction not severe

Legislation Cited:

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

Cases Cited:

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Jennifer May Gilroy (Applicant)
Lynne Arblaster (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Gilroy (Self-represented) (Applicant)
L Arblaster (Self-represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/206382

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

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

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: Jennifer Gilroy (the applicant) has applied to the Court pursuant to both s 7 (Pt 2) and s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Trees Act) for orders relating to trees on the neighbouring property belonging to Lynne Arblaster (the respondent). Numerous trees grow on Ms Arblaster’s property along the long common boundary shared by the parties. The Pt 2 application is made partly on the basis that trees may have caused damage, but principally to prevent damage in future and to avoid the cost of repairing such damage. The Pt 2A application is made on the basis that trees forming hedges near the rear of Ms Arblaster’s property obstruct sunlight and views.

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 Ms Gilroy. Ms Arblaster filed no material with the Court.

Framework for this decision

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

• Whether the applicant has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondent 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 applicant’s property: s 10(2)(a).

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

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

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