Hoffmann v Goff - [2025] NSWLEC 1317

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hoffmann v Goff [2025] NSWLEC 1317
Hearing dates: 30 January 2025
Date of orders: 07 May 2025
Decision date: 07 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:
The orders of the Court are:
(1)   The respondent shall engage and pay contractors with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s bamboo located along the common boundary, to approximately 300mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, in mid-December each year, and in mid-February each year, commencing in May 2025.
(2)   The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors, and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s fig trees located along the common boundary to approximately 100mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, commencing in May 2025, and to prune the northern side of the fig trees by up to 200mm, but only to the extent that a cover of foliage is retained.
(3)   The applicant shall provide all required access for undertaking the pruning works or for clearing debris, including access via the applicant’s dwelling to the 2nd floor deck adjacent to the trees, upon receipt of 7 days notice from the respondent by email.
(4)   The pruning works shall comply with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.
(5)   All pruning works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) high hedges —¬¬ severe obstruction of view from a dwelling — privacy important to respondent — orders provide a balance between both parties’ preferences

Legislation Cited:
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 10, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, reg 4
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules, 2005

Cases Cited:
Ball v Bahramali [2010] NSWLEC 1334
Dempsey v Cignetti [2023] NSWLEC 1224
Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Steber v Job [2019] NSWLEC 1308
Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004
Wein v Reeves [2022] NSWLEC 1019
Yeates v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338

Texts Cited:
Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), Department of Justice and Attorney General, November 2009
Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, July 2016

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Catherine Hoffmann (Applicant)
Marilyn Anna Goff (Respondent)
Representation: C Hoffmann (Self-represented) (Applicant)
M Goff (Self-represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/367700
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Background

Catherine Hoffmann, the applicant, and Marilyn Anna Goff, the respondent, own and occupy properties in North Curl Curl, which share a side boundary. The common boundary extended from approximately west to east between the parties’ driveways, which met the street at the end of a cul-de-sac. Both properties were located on a hill that ascended from the west and rose up…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hoffmann v Goff

Details

AGLC: Hoffmann v Goff [2025] NSWLEC 1317
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1317
Decision Date: 07 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hoffmann and Goff were neighbours whose properties shared a common boundary, with trees and bamboo plants growing along the line dividing their properties. The dispute arose when the growth of these plants impeded sunlight to the applicant’s deck and affected the view from it. The applicant sought an injunction against the respondent to prevent the obstruction of light and view by the plants and for an order for the respondent to prune the plants. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether the growth of the plants constituted a nuisance or an obstruction of light and whether the applicant was entitled to an injunction to prevent it and to require the respondent to prune the plants. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant’s entitlement to light and view was legally recognised and whether the proposed pruning regime was reasonable and practical.

The court found that the growth of the plants constituted a nuisance or an obstruction of light and view, as it was an unreasonable interference with the applicant’s use and enjoyment of their property. The court recognised that the right to light and view is a recognised property right in equity and common law. The court found that the proposed pruning regime was reasonable and practical, and it ordered the respondent to prune the plants in accordance with the specified schedule and in compliance with the relevant safety standards. The court also ordered the applicant to provide access for the pruning works and for clearing debris.

The orders of the Court were that the respondent shall engage and pay contractors or Mr Goff to prune the bamboo and fig trees along the common boundary to specified heights and at specified times each year, commencing in May 2025. The applicant shall provide all required access for undertaking the pruning works or for clearing debris, upon receipt of 7 days notice from the respondent by email. The pruning works shall comply with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016 and shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The respondent shall engage and pay contractors with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s bamboo located along the common boundary, to approximately 300mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, in mid-December each year, and in mid-February each year, commencing in May 2025.

(2) The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors, and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s fig trees located along the common boundary to approximately 100mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, commencing in May 2025, and to prune the northern side of the fig trees by up to 200mm, but only to the extent that a cover of foliage is retained.

(3) The applicant shall provide all required access for undertaking the pruning works or for clearing debris, including access via the applicant’s dwelling to the 2nd floor deck adjacent to the trees, upon receipt of 7 days notice from the respondent by email.

(4) The pruning works shall comply with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

(5) All pruning works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hoffmann v Goff [2025] NSWLEC 1317
Hearing dates:	30 January 2025
Date of orders:	07 May 2025
Decision date:	07 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Douglas AC
Decision:	The orders of the Court are: (1) The respondent shall engage and pay contractors with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s bamboo located along the common boundary, to approximately 300mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, in mid-December each year, and in mid-February each year, commencing in May 2025. (2) The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors, and or Mr Goff, to prune the height of the respondent’s fig trees located along the common boundary to approximately 100mm below the height of the applicant’s deck handrail in late April-early May each year, commencing in May 2025, and to prune the northern side of the fig trees by up to 200mm, but only to the extent that a cover of foliage is retained. (3) The applicant shall provide all required access for undertaking the pruning works or for clearing debris, including access via the applicant’s dwelling to the 2nd floor deck adjacent to the trees, upon receipt of 7 days notice from the respondent by email. (4) The pruning works shall comply with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016. (5) All pruning works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) high hedges —¬¬ severe obstruction of view from a dwelling — privacy important to respondent — orders provide a balance between both parties’ preferences
Legislation Cited:	Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 10, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, reg 4 Uniform Civil Procedures Rules, 2005
Cases Cited:	Ball v Bahramali [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Dempsey v Cignetti [2023] NSWLEC 1224 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Steber v Job [2019] NSWLEC 1308 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Wein v Reeves [2022] NSWLEC 1019 Yeates v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338
Texts Cited:	Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), Department of Justice and Attorney General, November 2009 Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, July 2016
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Catherine Hoffmann (Applicant) Marilyn Anna Goff (Respondent)
Representation:	C Hoffmann (Self-represented) (Applicant) M Goff (Self-represented) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/367700
Publication restriction:	Nil