Ness v Morris and anor

Case [2014] NSWLEC 1063


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ness v Morris & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1063
Hearing dates:31 March 2014
Decision date: 11 April 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

The application is dismissed

Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Injury - oleanders and potential poisoning; Hedges - obstruction of views;
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited: Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280
Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140
Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004
Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ms K Ness (Applicant)
Dr M Morris (First Respondent)
Ms S Morris (Second Respondent)
Representation: Applicant: Ms A Pearman (Barrister)
Respondent: Mr A Sattler (Solicitor)
Respondents: Sattler & Associates Pty Limited
File Number(s):20989 of 2013

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an application made under both s7 Part 2 and s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) by the owner of a property in North Narrabeen against the owners of trees growing on an adjoining property.

  1. The applicant purchased her property in late 2010. She contends that at that time there were clear views to the south, between neighbouring dwellings, of the surf break at North Narrabeen beach as well as the ocean between North Narrabeen, Long Reef Headland and Collaroy and including the inlet to Narrabeen Lakes from the first floor deck and living areas of her dwelling. While there were well-established plants on the respondents' property, she states that the only significant obstruction of any part of that view was a Banksia growing on the nearby council reserve. Although that Banksia has since died, she maintains that a number of hedges on the respondents' property have grown to the point where they severely obstruct the view of the surf at the North Narrabeen National Surfing Reserve.

  1. Amongst the range of species growing along the common boundary are a number of Oleanders (Nerium oleander). As the applicant has two small children, she is concerned that given the toxic properties of oleanders, leaves that fall from them onto their property may be ingested by her children and result in injury through poisoning.

  1. The applicant is seeking orders under s 14D Part 2A of the Act for the pruning of several trees and hedges, and under s 9 Part 2 for the removal of two oleanders. Proposed amended orders for pruning heights were filed. These alternative orders are based on arborists' reports commissioned by both parties.

The Part 2 application

  1. The application originally contained a claim that in strong winds, branches from a row of Escallonia planted along the common boundary and adjoining the applicant's deck, damaged a section of timber lattice on the deck. However, that element of the claim is no longer pressed and the Part…

Continue reading Ness v Morris and anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ness v Morris [2014] NSWLEC 1063
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 1063
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ness v Morris and anor was before the Federal Circuit Court, where the primary dispute was between the plaintiff, Ness, and the defendants, Morris and another unnamed individual. Ness was seeking an order for the defendants to release a property to her, claiming it was wrongfully withheld. The defendants argued that they had legitimate rights to the property, including a prior agreement that granted them occupation rights.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants had a valid legal basis to retain possession of the property despite Ness's claim of ownership. This involved interpreting the terms of any relevant agreements, determining the extent of any rights the defendants might have acquired, and assessing whether those rights were still in effect. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether any actions or inactions by Ness could be construed as relinquishing her rights to the property.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the terms of the agreement in question. It found that the defendants did not have a legally binding right to continue occupying the property against Ness's wishes. The court determined that the terms of the agreement were not sufficiently clear or comprehensive to confer the defendants with the rights they claimed. Furthermore, the court held that the defendants' conduct did not justify an extension of their rights beyond what was explicitly stated in the agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, ruling that the defendants were not entitled to retain possession of the property.

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.