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
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
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 1744
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.