Karam v Meredith

[2011] NSWLEC 1391

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Title:	Karam v Meredith
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWLEC 1391
Hearing Date(s):	3 February 2012
Decision Date:	21 March 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Fakes C
Decision:	Application upheld in part. Severe obstruction of a view found; one tree to be removed and replaced by the respondent
Catchwords:	TREES [NEIGHBOURS] hedge; obstruction of views and sunlight;
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited:	Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
Texts Cited:
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ms M Karam (Applicant) Mr T Meredith (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel Applicant: Mr N Luke (Solicitor) Respondent: Ms H Irish (Barrister)
- Solicitors:	Solicitors Applicant: Stacks Respondent: McCartney Young
File number(s):	21003 of 2011

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application pursuant to s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by the owner of a property in East Ballina against the owner of trees growing on adjoining land.

2. The applicant contends that a row of Golden Cane Palms (Dypsis lutescens), Bird of Paradise (Strelitzia nicolai), and some Bangalow palms (Archontophoenix cunninghamiana) planted on the respondent's property near the common boundary fence, severely obstruct views from her dwelling and sunlight to windows of her dwelling.

3. The applicant seeks orders for the removal of the trees, or in the alternative, the pruning of the trees to a height sufficient to prevent obstruction of views. No orders are specified for remedying the alleged obstruction of sunlight.

The trees and the viewing points

1. There are 13 trees subject to this application although the claim form refers to "in excess of 30-40 trees". The diagram included in the claim form does not identify individual trees but shows their location as a shaded area along the north-western boundary of the respondent's property. This is the common boundary between the parties' properties.

2. The hearing commenced with an inspection of the trees from the respondent's property. The trees were, identified and numbered. From east to west, the trees are:

   1 Bird of Paradise

   2 Golden Cane Palm

   3 Bird of Paradise

   4 Golden Cane Palm

   5 Golden Cane Palm

   6 Bird of Paradise

   7 Golden Cane Palm

   8 Golden Cane Palm

   9 Bird of Paradise

   10 Bangalow Palm (3 stems)

   11 Golden Cane Palm

   12 Bangalow Palm

   13 Bangalow Palm

3. Trees 10-13 are growing along part of the western boundary as an extension of the planting along the northern boundary of the respondent's property. The Golden Cane Palms and Bird of Paradise are clumping plants and each tree has several stems. According to the respondent, the trees were planted in about 2002/2003.

4. In addition to the 13 trees, there are references to a number of Pandanus trees in a report prepared for the applicant by Graeme Barr Architects. All…