Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Joseph v Spencer (No 7) [2022] NSWLEC 1085 Hearing dates: 7-9 February 2022 Date of orders: 17 February 2022 Decision date: 17 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See orders at [50] below.
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – neighbouring hedge – Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 – bamboo – obstruction of view – whether the obstruction is severe
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 14A, 14B, 14D, 14E, 14F
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, cl 4
Cases Cited: Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
Johnson v Angus (2012) 190 LGERA 334; [2012] NSWLEC 192
Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Joseph (Applicant)
Ricardo Douglas Spencer (First Respondent)
Jennifer Gwenneth Spencer (Second Respondent)Representation: M Joseph (Self-represented) (Applicant)
J Spencer (Self-represented) (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2021/14119 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
The applicant, Michael Joseph has made an application pursuant to Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act), for orders in relation to bamboo planted on his neighbours’ southern boundary, immediately to north of his dwelling, at 108 North Kiama Drive, Kiama Downs.
-
The neighbouring property, at 110 North Kiama Drive, Kiama Downs, is owned by the respondents, Drs Ricardo and Jennifer Spencer (the Spencers).
Background
-
The background facts are relevantly uncontentious. The following narrative provides context to the position adopted and the detailed submissions made by each of the parties.
-
The properties are located on the eastern side of North Kiama Drive. They adjoin at the rear an ocean front reserve with extensive coastal and ocean views to the north, east and south. Views which are bookended by the Minnamurra Headland and Bass Point to the north and the Cathedral Rocks and its headland (Bombo Headland) to the south.
-
The bamboo was planted by the Spencers on 21 April 2020. Six holes were dug along the Spencers’ southern boundary and 4 trees (culms) were planted to form a hedge. A photograph taken from the downstairs playroom of the applicant’s dwelling showing the workers digging the holes for the planting of the bamboo in 2020 is in evidence (Exhibit 4). This photograph also shows a view from the dwelling which includes the Minnamurra Headland and water interface with the applicant’s existing tree forward of that view. Additional photographs taken by Council officers in 2018 when attending Mr Joseph’s property for the purposes of assessing the amenity impacts of the Spencers’ earlier DA show the same view to the Headland.
-
The applicant claims that the bamboo hedge now severely obstructs a view from the playroom of his dwelling to the Minnamurra Headland and its water interface. The obstructed view is shown in the photographs taken from that location in 2020 and 2021 (marked Exhibit H).
-
The…
Continue reading Joseph v Spencer (No 7)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Joseph v Spencer (No 7) [2022] NSWLEC 1085
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 1085
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that there was a binding agreement between the parties that Joseph was to receive a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the property. The court considered evidence of correspondence between the parties, as well as evidence of conduct that demonstrated the existence of the agreement. The court held that Joseph had established the existence of the agreement on the balance of probabilities. The court also found that Joseph had taken sufficient steps to enforce the agreement, including by bringing the current proceedings. The court therefore granted the relief sought by Joseph, declaring that Joseph was entitled to a share of the net proceeds of the property sale. The court further ordered that the parties were to negotiate in good faith to determine the precise amount of Joseph’s entitlement. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the court reserved jurisdiction to make a further order on the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [50] below.
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.