Stubbs v Lipar

[2024] NSWLEC 1780

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stubbs v Lipar [2024] NSWLEC 1780

Hearing dates:

17 June 2024

Date of orders:

17 June 2024

Decision date:

17 June 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Douglas AC

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 – is alleged future damage likely in the near future? Pt 2A – high hedges – future severe obstruction of views and sunlight claimed – do trees form a hedge for the purpose of the Act – s 14F considerations – oversight from applicant’s dwelling – privacy important

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006,

Pt 2, ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14E

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019 s 4

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kryiakides [2007] NSWLEC 292

Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122

Hendry & anor v Olsson & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1302

Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; (2008) 159 LGERA 280

Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140

Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Matthew John Stubbs (Applicant)
Sarah Lipar (First Respondent)
Steven Lipar (Second Respondent)

Representation:

M Stubbs (Self-represented) (Applicant)
S Lipar (Self-represented) (First Respondent)
S Lipar (Self-represented) (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/154660

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: Matthew John Stubbs, (the applicant), and Sarah and Steven Lipar, (the respondents), share a side boundary between their properties in Catherine Hill.

2. The parties’ land parcels were around 750 square metres (m) and roughly rectangular. Both dwellings were two-storey and recently constructed and ran parallel with the common boundary. They faced northeast. Mr Stubbs dwelling was setback 1.3 m from the common boundary, while the common boundary setback of the respondents’ dwelling was about 2 m.

3. The dwellings were located near the front of the blocks, though the front Mr Stubb’s dwelling was setback a few metres further than the Lipar’s. Similarly at the rear, Mr Stubb’s dwelling extended beyond the respondents’ dwelling. Both blocks had a moderate downward slope from about north to south, which resulted in a high vantage point at the rear of the dwellings for views of their large back yards and bushland beyond.

4. Mr and Ms Lipar occupied their property in 2017. The respondents established a garden in their front yard soon after occupation and planted trees and shrubs along the northwestern side of their dwelling and bamboo in planter boxes along the northwestern boundary of their back yard. Mr Stubbs purchased his land in mid-2019 and occupied in mid-2021, after his dwelling was constructed.

5. Mr Stubbs contended that the Lipar’s tree and shrub plantings were going to cause damage to his property and block views from two balconies of his dwelling. Mr…