Miller v Watkins

[2025] NSWLEC 1589

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Miller v Watkins [2025] NSWLEC 1589

Hearing dates:

27 June 2025

Date of orders:

19 August 2025

Decision date:

19 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Nichols AC

Decision:

The Orders of the Court are:

(1) The application to prune the trees is dismissed.

(2) The Applicant’s application for compensation to repair the damaged fence is dismissed.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) - damage to fence caused by trees – sunlight - obstruction not severe - application dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 9, 10, 14A, 14B, 14F

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kryiakides [2007] NSWLEC 292

Vartazarian v Elworthy; Fallows v Elworthy [2020] NSWLEC 1462

Texts Cited:

Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Mandy Miller (Applicant)
Kim Watkins (Respondent)

Representation:

Mandy Miller (Self represented) (Applicant)
Kim Watkins (Self represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/104906

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Ms Miller (the ‘Applicant’) applied to the Court, pursuant to s 7 (Pt 2) and s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the ‘Trees Act’), seeking orders for the Respondents to prune ten trees located at the Respondent’s rear boundary of 60 Beverly Street Merimbula. The Applicant owns 58 Beverly Street Merimbula, and shares a side boundary with the Respondent’s rear boundary.

2. The Applicant submits that the trees form a hedge and severely obstruct sunlight reaching her property, in particular including the rear living room, rear deck and side access area.

3. Ms Watkins (the Respondent) enjoys the privacy, amenity and biodiversity benefits the trees provide and seeks to maintain the trees in their current state. The trees range in species and size but are generally between 3 and 6 metres in height.

4. The Applicant is also concerned about the damage the trees have caused to the timber fence on the shared property boundary and that the fence is dilapidated and requires replacement.

5. No expert reports were submitted, and I rely on my observations made during the hearing.

6. The Applicant submits the shade and height of the trees act as a hedge located on neighbouring land. This must be considered under Part 2A of The Act.

7. The trees are planted along the shared property boundary, however they range in species, height, age, condition, and pruning history. There has been no evidence adduced to satisfy me that the trees have been planted so as to form a hedge (s 14A(1)(a)). The jurisdictional test required has not been satisfied and the Court's power under s 9 of the Act has not been engaged.

8. The trees are on adjoining land (s 14B) and rise to more than 2.5 metres in height. Although the jurisdictional test in [7] have not been satisfied, if I am incorrect and the trees were planted and act as a hedge, the issues to be determined would then have been as follows.

1. Is there a severe obstruction of sunlight caused by…