Ong v Murray - [2025] NSWLEC 1023

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ong v Murray [2025] NSWLEC 1023
Hearing dates: 5 September 2024
Date of orders: 21 January 2025
Decision date: 21 January 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS): high hedges – claimed severe obstruction of sunlight – respondents’ privacy important – undesirability of interfering with the trees outweighs the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed or remedied

Legislation Cited:
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, s 4

Cases Cited:
Awad v Hardie (No.3) [2012] NSWLEC 1067
Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292
Barstow v Ainsworth [2023] NSWLEC 1442
Britten v Smith [2024] NSWLEC 1458
Devile v Frith [2011] NSWLEC 1250
Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
McCallum v Riordan [2011] NSWLEC 1009
McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280
Ong v Randwick City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1669
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012

Texts Cited:
NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General, Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, November 2009
Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Ong (Applicant)
Stuart Murray (First Respondent)
Louise Formosa (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Sloan (Solicitor) (Applicant)
S Murray (Self-Represented) (First Respondent)
L Formosa (Self-represented) (Second Respondent)
Solicitors:
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2024/211604
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background

COMMISSIONER: Peter Ong (the applicant), and Stuart Murray and Louise Formosa (the respondents), share a side boundary oriented approximately east-west between their Coogee properties. The respondents’ property is located north of the common boundary and is deeper than the applicant’s, extending from a street to the west downslope to an avenue to the east. The respondents’ dwelling is east facing and is located at the lower eastern end of the block. The ground floor of the applicant’s dwelling, which is the second of three floors, is accessed from the street to the west.
Mr Ong purchased his property in 2010 but initially occupied his dwelling in 2019. The respondents purchased and occupied their property in 2012, at which time a dense row of trees, which appeared in photographs to be about 7-9 metres (m) tall, was growing near the common boundary on the respondents’ land. The trees screened the respondents’ dwelling windows and backyard west of their dwelling, from oversight from the applicant’s dwelling. A row of mature Camellia trees growing on the applicant’s side of the common boundary augmented this screening.
In 2016, Mr Murray and Ms Formosa undertook a major renovation which included installation of an inground swimming pool in the backyard. The substantial trees along the common boundary were removed for the pool installation and Bambusa textilis Var. Gracilis (Slender Weavers Bamboo) (the bamboo) was planted instead.
After occupying his property in 2019, Mr Ong lodged a Development Application (DA) with…

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 Ong v Murray

Details

AGLC: Ong v Murray [2025] NSWLEC 1023
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1023
Decision Date: 21 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ong v Murray involved a dispute between two parties, Ong and Murray, concerning the validity of a settlement agreement. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Ong sought to enforce a settlement agreement, arguing that it was binding and enforceable. Murray, on the other hand, contested the validity of the agreement, asserting that it was not properly executed and, therefore, unenforceable.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the settlement agreement was validly executed and whether it could be enforced as a binding contract between the parties. The Court had to determine the requirements for a valid settlement agreement and whether the evidence demonstrated that the agreement met those requirements.

In reaching its decision, the Court examined the evidence presented regarding the execution of the settlement agreement. The Court found that the agreement was not properly executed, as it lacked the necessary signatures and did not comply with the requirements for a valid contract. Consequently, the Court held that the settlement agreement was not binding and could not be enforced. The Court refused Ong's application to enforce the agreement.

The Court's decision was based on a rigorous analysis of the legal principles governing the validity of settlement agreements. The Court concluded that, due to the deficiencies in the execution of the agreement, it was not enforceable. As a result, the Court dismissed Ong's application, and the settlement agreement was deemed invalid.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ong v Murray [2025] NSWLEC 1023
Hearing dates:	5 September 2024
Date of orders:	21 January 2025
Decision date:	21 January 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Douglas AC
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) The application is refused.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS): high hedges – claimed severe obstruction of sunlight – respondents’ privacy important – undesirability of interfering with the trees outweighs the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed or remedied
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, s 4
Cases Cited:	Awad v Hardie (No.3) [2012] NSWLEC 1067 Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Barstow v Ainsworth [2023] NSWLEC 1442 Britten v Smith [2024] NSWLEC 1458 Devile v Frith [2011] NSWLEC 1250 Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 McCallum v Riordan [2011] NSWLEC 1009 McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280 Ong v Randwick City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1669 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
Texts Cited:	NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General, Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, November 2009 Randwick Development Control Plan 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Ong (Applicant) Stuart Murray (First Respondent) Louise Formosa (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: N Sloan (Solicitor) (Applicant) S Murray (Self-Represented) (First Respondent) L Formosa (Self-represented) (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2024/211604
Publication restriction:	Nil