Morgan v Bennett

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Morgan v Bennett [2022] NSWLEC 1744
Hearing dates: 10 November 2022
Date of orders: 10 November 2022
Decision date: 10 November 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – trees pruned before hearing – other causes of sunlight obstruction

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Pts 2, 2A, ss 7, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14E, 14F

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292

Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jane Morgan (Applicant)
Paul Bennett (First Respondent)
Joanne Bennett (Second Respondent)
Representation: J Morgan (Self represented) (Applicant)
P Bennett (Self represented) (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2022/221472
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background

  1. Ms Morgan, the Applicant, and Mr and Mrs Bennett, the Respondents, enter their Allambie Heights properties from separate streets, and share a north – south rear boundary. Ms Morgan occupied her property in 2005 and added a second storey in 2008.

  2. The Applicant claims that twelve trees planted close to the common boundary in the Respondents’ yard severely block sunlight to nominated windows of her dwelling, particularly during winter. Ms Morgan also claims that the trees lose their leaves at least 2-3 times each year for a period of about one month, necessitating daily sweeping of her backyard to clear the “overwhelming” quantity of leaves, which also “clog up the pool cleaner”, and “are a fire hazard”.

  3. The trees comprise nine Syzygium sp (Lilly Pilly), one Camellia sasanqua (Camellia) and one Callistemon sp (Bottlebrush) (the trees), planted in about 2013 - 2014 along the common boundary as well as one long established Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) (tree 12) located near the north-eastern corner of the Respondents’ yard, but well clear of the common boundary.

  4. When the application was made to the Court, the trees had grown tall and fairly broad. Based on photographs provided by the Applicant, they had reached a height of about 7- 8.5 metres (m). The Brush Box is about 13 m tall with a dense broad domed canopy, typical of the species.

  5. The Applicant nominated three west facing windows (W1 – W3) and a glass door (D1) on the dwelling’s ground floor, and a further three west facing windows (W4 – W6) on the first floor, for assessment of obstruction of sunlight. The Applicant submitted that “no unobstructed sunlight is available in any of the windows on the western side of her dwelling”, and that W1 – W3 and D1 receive less than one hour of filtered afternoon sunlight during the whole year, including only about 15 – 30 minutes of filtered afternoon sunlight in winter. Ms Morgan also alleged that windows W4 – W6 received…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morgan v Bennett and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1744
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morgan v Bennett was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a claim by the plaintiff, Morgan, against the defendant, Bennett, for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to fulfil certain contractual obligations, leading to financial losses. The defendant, in turn, denied any wrongdoing and argued that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded.

The court was required to determine whether there was a binding contract between the parties and, if so, whether the defendant had breached it. The central legal issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the contract and if the plaintiff had suffered any damages as a result of such a breach. The court had to carefully examine the terms of the agreement, the conduct of both parties, and the consequences of the defendant's actions.

In its reasoning, the court found that there was indeed a binding contract between the parties. However, it determined that the defendant had not breached the contract as alleged by the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had acted in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and that any financial losses suffered by the plaintiff were not a result of the defendant's actions but rather due to other factors unrelated to the contract. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The application is refused.

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.