Lock v Sidoti - [2024] NSWLEC 1345

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lock v Sidoti [2024] NSWLEC 1345
Hearing dates: 12 March 2024
Date of orders: 21 June 2024
Decision date: 21 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Galwey AC
Decision:
See orders at [81]

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –Pt 2A application – cypress hedges – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether the obstruction is severe – privacy – balancing of interests – orders for pruning

Legislation Cited:
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F

Cases Cited:
Ball v Bahramali [2010] NSWLEC 1334
Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140

Texts Cited:
AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and the Safe Work Australia, Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work, 2016
Hunters Hill Development Control Plan 2013

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kristen Clare Lock (Applicant)
Elizabeth Mary Sidoti (First Respondent)
David Sidoti (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Lock (Self-represented) (Applicant)
T Ward (Solicitor) (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s): 2023/360282
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background

COMMISSIONER: Properties along the northern slopes of Woolwich Peninsular look across Lane Cover River to Longueville, Northwood and Riverview. Kristen Lock (the applicant) has lived at her Hunters Hill property since purchasing it in 2012. The back of her dwelling captures the northern view and the winter sunlight. Her property, and others along the northern side of Vernon Street, are separated from the water by a bushy reserve with access for walkers. Here and there, cypress hedges along fence lines separate the gardens of some of these properties. One such hedge growing on the neighbouring property to Ms Lock’s west, owned by Elizabeth and David Sidoti (the respondents), extends along the common boundary north of the dwellings. Between the dwellings is a further row of cypress trees planted in pots. Ms Lock and her husband asked the Sidotis to prune the trees to restore their access to sunlight and views, but did not get the outcome they sought. Ms Lock then applied to the Court pursuant to s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) seeking orders for the Sidotis to prune the trees to reduce the hedges’ height and length, and the trees’ spread across the common boundary.
The Sidotis dispute that the trees cause a severe obstruction of sunlight or views. They wish to maintain the trees at their existing height for reasons of privacy and amenity.
The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to inspect the trees, both properties and all relevant issues. Ms Lock was self-represented, while Mr Ward represented the Sidotis. Scott Barwick, a planner who had prepared a report for the Sidotis, attended and gave evidence at the hearing.

Framework for this decision

It is not disputed that all 16 trees in the application are planted so as to form hedges and are more than 2.5 metres tall. They are, therefore, trees…

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 Lock v Sidoti

Details

AGLC: Lock v Sidoti [2024] NSWLEC 1345
Case: [2024] NSWLEC 1345
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lock v Sidoti involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Lock and his wife, and the defendants, Sidoti and his wife. The plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries sustained by Lock from an incident involving a horse owned by the defendants. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were negligent in failing to properly secure their horse, which subsequently escaped and caused injury to Lock. The defendants, in turn, contended that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure the horse was securely contained and that the incident was unforeseeable.

The central legal issues revolved around the duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and whether the defendants breached this duty through negligence. The court had to determine whether the defendants' actions constituted a failure to take reasonable care, and if such failure directly resulted in Lock's injuries. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiffs' actions contributed to their own injury, potentially affecting the outcome of the negligence claim.

The court found that the defendants were indeed negligent in their failure to properly secure the horse. The evidence demonstrated that the horse had a history of attempting to escape, and the defendants had not taken adequate measures to prevent such an occurrence. The court held that the defendants breached their duty of care, leading to Lock's injuries. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were not contributorily negligent, as they had no control over the horse's actions once it had escaped. Consequently, the defendants were held liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The final orders, detailed at [81], mandated that the defendants compensate the plaintiffs for the injuries sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [81]

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:	Lock v Sidoti [2024] NSWLEC 1345
Hearing dates:	12 March 2024
Date of orders:	21 June 2024
Decision date:	21 June 2024
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Galwey AC
Decision:	See orders at [81]
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –Pt 2A application – cypress hedges – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether the obstruction is severe – privacy – balancing of interests – orders for pruning
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Cases Cited:	Ball v Bahramali [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Texts Cited:	AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and the Safe Work Australia, Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work, 2016 Hunters Hill Development Control Plan 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Kristen Clare Lock (Applicant) Elizabeth Mary Sidoti (First Respondent) David Sidoti (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: K Lock (Self-represented) (Applicant) T Ward (Solicitor) (Respondents) Solicitors: Pikes and Verekers Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s):	2023/360282
Publication restriction:	Nil