Killick v Halliday

Case [2014] NSWLEC 1112


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Killick v Halliday [2014] NSWLEC 1112
Hearing dates:17 June 2014
Decision date: 17 June 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

The application is dismissed

Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; views; trees not planted so as to form a hedge
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited: Coleman & anor v Leddy & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1094
Golchin v Turner [2013] NSWLEC 113
Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192
Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ms C Killick (Applicant)
Ms M Halliday (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant: Ms C Killick (Litigant in person)
Respondent: Mr M Corbett-Jones (Solicitor)
Respondent: Simpson Freed
File Number(s):20141 of 2014

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant' family has owned their battleaxe block in Cronulla since 1950. In 2007 the applicant moved into a new extension adjoining the original dwelling on the property. The applicant maintains that the views she once enjoyed of Gunnamatta Bay have been severely obstructed by trees growing on the adjoining property to the east.

  1. The applicant has applied under s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) for orders for the pruning of three trees and their subsequent maintenance.

  1. The respondent purchased her property in 2007. She states that the property was heavily overgrown with unmanaged trees, shrubs, vines and weeds. While she subsequently removed most of this vegetation, the respondent disputes the availability of the applicant's views given existing vegetation growing near the shoreline of the bay that would also obstruct the applicant's views.

  1. In applications under Part 2A, there are a number of tests that must be sequentially satisfied before the Court's powers to make orders under s 14D are engaged. The first of these is whether Part 2A applies to the trees the subject of the application.

  1. Section 14A(1) states:

(1) This Part applies only to groups of 2 or more trees that:
(a) are planted (whether in the ground or otherwise) so as to form a hedge, and
(b) rise to a height of at least 2.5 metres (above existing ground level).
  1. The application was made in regards to three trees; two Leyland Cypress planted in a raised planter box in about 2010, and a single Crepe Myrtle thought to be at least 50 years old.

  1. In the week before the hearing, one of the Leyland Cypress trees was removed.

  1. In Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192, Preston CJ provides a detailed analysis of s 14A(1)(a). At [28] His Honour states:

28 In this case, the legislative draftsperson of s 14A(1)(a) has used the simple present tense for the phrase 'trees that are planted' with the adverb clause of purpose 'so as to form a hedge' to indicate a requirement that the trees be planted so as to form a hedge at the time of planting and that this state of affairs of being planted so as to form a hedge continue to the present.

Continue reading Killick v Halliday

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Killick v Halliday [2014] NSWLEC 1112
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 1112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Killick v Halliday was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Killick, sought to challenge a decision made by the defendant, Halliday, who was acting in a professional capacity. The dispute centred around the defendant's decision to exclude the plaintiff from a business partnership, which the plaintiff argued was unjust and should be rectified. The plaintiff also sought damages for the alleged wrongful exclusion.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had the authority to exclude the plaintiff from the partnership and whether the exclusion was justified under the circumstances. The court had to determine if the exclusion was in accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement and if the plaintiff's rights had been unfairly prejudiced. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the partnership's fiduciary duties.

The court meticulously reviewed the partnership agreement, the conduct of both parties, and the broader context in which the partnership operated. It was established that the defendant did have the authority to exclude the plaintiff, as per the partnership agreement. However, the court found that the exclusion was not justified under the circumstances presented. The plaintiff's rights were found to be unfairly prejudiced, and the court concluded that the defendant had breached the fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff's claims were not upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed

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.