Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sader v Hunt [2025] NSWLEC 1026 Hearing dates: 15 January 2025 Date of orders: 20 January 2025 Decision date: 20 January 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Horton C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The application is dismissed.
Catchwords: TREES (Disputes between neighbours): whether reasonable effort made – whether obstruction is severe – whether powers of the Court enlivened
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Cases Cited: Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152.
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council (2004) 134 LEGRA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nathalie Sader (Applicant)
Nathan Hunt (Respondent 1)
Andrea Hunt (Respondent 2)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Gallifuoco (Applicant)
J Hunt (Agent)
Sage Solicitors (Applicant)
J Hunt (Agent)
File Number(s): 2024/412460 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: An application has been made under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act), seeking orders for the removal of trees on a property in the southern Sydney suburb of Illawong.
-
The applicant, Ms Sader, believes three groups of trees at No 8 Peru Place obstruct either sunlight or views, or both sunlight and views, from various locations around her property at No 7 Peru Place, Illawong.
-
It is helpful to briefly describe the houses in Peru Place are set high on steeply sloping terrain, with views generally to the west and north to the Georges River and beyond. The Applicant’s property overlooks an adjoining property at 8 Peru Place, on which the trees are located.
-
The grouping of the trees on No 8 Peru Place is useful to set out here as follows:
Group 1: A murraya hedge planted along the south western boundary of the shared boundary.
Group 2: A large clump of vegetation identified as Bamboo Palm and Bamboo, also planted along the south western boundary of the shared boundary.
Group 3: A hedge comprising Cupressus and bamboo planted along the eastern boundary of the adjoining land at No 8 Peru Place.
-
Ms Sader seeks orders as follows:
1. Within 30 days of the date of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall prune and thereafter maintain the hedges as follows:
a. The Murraya hedge on the south western boundary of 8 Peru Place, Illawong is to be pruned to a height of 2.5m;
b. In respect of the hedge comprising Bamboo and Palms along the southern boundary of 8 Peru Place, Illawong:
i. The Bamboo is to be pruned to a height of 2.5m; and
ii.The Palms are to be sufficiently thinned to provide solar access to 7 Peru Place, Illawong; and
c. The hedge, comprising Cupressus and other species, located on the eastern boundary of 8 Peru Place, Illawong is to be pruned to a height of 2.5m
2.The pruning works in Order 1 AQF Level 3 qualified arborists or qualified horticulturalists (the contractor), with…
Continue reading Sader v Hunt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sader v Hunt [2025] NSWLEC 1026
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1026
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the arbitral award was enforceable under Australian law and whether there were any valid grounds for refusing its enforcement. The court had to consider the principles of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, as well as the applicable Australian statutes and case law. The court also had to examine the specific procedural irregularities alleged by Mr Hunt and determine their impact on the enforceability of the award.
The court found that the arbitral award was valid and enforceable under the New York Convention. It held that the procedural irregularities identified by Mr Hunt did not amount to a denial of natural justice or a failure to provide adequate notice. The court emphasised that while the arbitral process must be fair, minor procedural flaws do not necessarily invalidate an award if the parties had a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The court further found that Mr Hunt's objections were largely based on the application of an incorrect standard of review. The Court dismissed the application and ruled that the arbitral award was enforceable in Australia.
The Court orders that:
(1) The application is dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) 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.