Tanios v Giourgas

[2023] NSWLEC 1806

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Tanios v Giourgas [2023] NSWLEC 1806

Hearing dates:

23 November 2023

Date of orders:

23 November 2023

Decision date:

23 November 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Douglas AC

Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – sunlight to a window is not severely obstructed – slime and mould, and injury from spiders, are not covered by the jurisdiction

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

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

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

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292

Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122

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

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

George Tanios (Applicant)
Steven Giourgas (First Respondent)
Mary Giourgas (Second Respondent)

Representation:

G Tanios (Self-represented) (Applicant)
S Giourgas (Self-represented) (Respondents)

File Number(s):

2023/282363

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

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

1. Background

2. George Tanios, the applicant, owns and occupies a property in Allawah. The respondents, Steven and Mary Giourgas, live in the adjacent property, north-west of the applicant. Both parties’ two-story dwellings have the same front setback from the street and face south-west over shallow rectangular yards. The gap between the dwellings is about 2.5 metres (m).

3. Mr Tanios’ occupation long predates the Giourgas’. When the respondents purchased and occupied their property in about 2005, they inherited a hedge of Thuja sp., growing close to the common boundary between the parties’ front yards.

4. Mr Tanios contended that the hedge severely blocked sunlight to a front dwelling window and caused mould on outer walls. The applicant claimed that the previous owner of the ‘Giourgas property’ had cut the hedge low to allow entry of sunlight, but the respondents would not prune the hedge, or prune it sufficiently, to remedy his alleged severe sunlight obstruction.

5. Consequently, Mr Tanios made an application to the Land and Environment Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act), and s 14B of the Trees Act.

Onsite hearing: observations and submissions

6. Both parties attended the onsite hearing, and I brought my own arboricultural expertise. For both the Pt 2 and the Pt 2A application, Mr Tanios proposed the following Orders:

1. That the tall hedge on the front boundary of the Applicant’s and the Respondents’ land be:

1. Cut to a height to be determined by the Court; and

2. Maintained at a height to be determined by the Court.

2. Such further or other orders as the Court sees fit.

7. In contesting the applicant’s claim, the respondents submitted that the obstruction of sunlight to Mr Tanios’ front window was caused by the orientation of the applicant’s dwelling, and by the dwelling’s roof, rather than the trees.…