Pham v Papaioannou

Case [2011] NSWLEC 1044


Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Pham v Papaioannou
Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWLEC 1044
Hearing Date(s): 28 January 2011
Decision Date: 09 February 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:

Brown C and Galwey A/C

Decision:

Appeal upheld, in part

Catchwords:

TREE DISPUTE - whether trees create severe obstruction of sunlight to, and view loss from, a window in a dwelling

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

Dr Tri Huu Pham (Applicant)
Mr Emile Papaioannou and Ms Vicky Papaioannou (Respondents)

Representation
- Counsel:

Counsel:
Mr M Gunning, barrister (Applicant)
Mr C McFadzean, solicitor (Respondent)

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Shaw Reynolds Bowen & Gerathy (Respondent)

File number(s): 20802 of 2010
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONERS: This is an application under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) by the owner of a property in Liguria Street, South Coogee regarding: trees on the adjoining property that is claimed obstruct sunlight to, and views from his dwelling.

  1. The applicant's dwelling was inspected on the site view and the locations of the view loss and the loss of sunlight were observed ; and an understanding of the relationship between these locations and the adjoining properties was made. The respondents' rear yard was also inspected, as were the trees in question, and observations were also made of the relationship between this area and the adjoining property, including the windows identified in the application.

The application

  1. Dr Pham is seeking orders that require the pruning of 7 x Lillypilly that have heights ranging between 2.76 m and 3.25 m. The trees are located at the northern end on the adjoining property, and the application seeks orders that the trees be maintained by the respondents at regular intervals, so that the top level of the trees will always remain below or at the level of the top of the existing colour bond fencing on the common boundary. During the hearing, Mr Gunning, for the applicant submitted the applicant would accept pruning of the trees to a height of some 250mm above the existing colour bond fence.

  2. The application also seeks orders to prevent other trees being planted to prevent a similar obstruction along the boundary or elsewhere on the property and also orders binding successors in title. The former is outside the scope of the Act as the Act applies only to existing trees and the latter is inconsistent with the provisions of s 16 of the Act.

  1. The application indicates that the view loss occurs from a large east facing window (W1) and an adjoining narrow vertical window (W2), both located in the living room, and from the rear yard, also in an easterly direction. The application states that the trees prevent distant views, over existing roofs, to the Pacific Ocean. The severe loss of sunlight is said to occur to at W1, and to a lesser extent, W2.

The respondent's position

  1. The respondents maintain that the trees should be maintained to a…

Continue reading Pham v Papaioannou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pham v Papaioannou [2011] NSWLEC 1044
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 1044
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pham v Papaioannou involved the appellant, Pham, contesting the decision of the primary judge to dismiss his claim for damages for deceit against the respondent, Papaioannou. The dispute originated from an alleged fraudulent scheme involving a property transaction. The matter was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the primary judge's findings and conclusions were correct or if there were any errors warranting a reversal of the decision. The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge correctly applied the principles of deceit and if there was sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent had acted fraudulently. The court examined the elements of deceit, including the requirement of a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, intention to deceive, and reliance on the representation causing damage.

The court of appeal found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and intent. The appellate judges concluded that the evidence presented indicated a higher degree of culpability on the part of the respondent than acknowledged by the primary judge. They determined that the primary judge should have found that the respondent was aware of the falsity of the representations and intended to deceive the appellant. Consequently, the court held that the primary judge's dismissal of the appellant's claim was incorrect, and the appeal was upheld in part. The matter was remitted to the primary judge for reconsideration in light of the appellate court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal upheld, in part

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.