Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners - Strata Plan 92669 v Elvy [2023] NSWLEC 1080 Hearing dates: 5 December 2022 Date of orders: 23 February 2023 Decision date: 23 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The application is refused.
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges –obstruction of views and sunlight – other causes of obstruction – balance between views and privacy
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14E, 14F
Cases Cited: Grantham Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Hinde v Anderson & anor [2009] NSWLEC 1148
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Owners of Strata Plan 92669 (Applicant)
Mark Selwyn Elvy (First Respondent)
Virginia Louise Elvy (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Rix (Agent) (Applicant)
S Green (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Green & McKay (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/217425 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an application under s 14B of Pt 2A of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) by The Owners of Strata Plan 92669, (the Applicant) who seeks the pruning of a hedge in a neighbouring property to remedy severe obstruction of sunlight to a window, and severe obstruction of views from a dwelling.
-
The Applicant is located in Coffs Harbour on the mid-north coast. It shares a north - south boundary with a property on its eastern side, which is owned by the Respondents, Mark and Virginia Elvy. A row of about 20 mature Syzygium sp. (Lilly Pilly) (the trees) are growing along the Respondents’ side of the common boundary.
-
The Respondents occupied their property in 1987. In about 2005, bushland on the uphill slope to the west of the Elvy’s was cleared and a concrete slab was poured on site. Soon after, the Respondents planted the trees, with the aim of providing privacy from overlooking of their dwelling and rear yard. After many years of inactivity, the Applicant’s five storey building was completed and registered in December 2015.
-
Two owners of Strata Plan 92669 are seeking remedy under this application. One is Dr Gosh who occupied first-floor apartment ‘1’ in early 2016 and claims that the trees cause a severe obstruction of sunlight to a window. Mr Rix, the Agent acting for the Applicant, claims that the trees severely obstruct views from his second-floor apartment, ‘3’, which were available upon his occupation at the end of 2015.
-
In 2017, Dr Gosh conducted mediation with the Respondents in an attempt to gain more light to his apartment. Mr Rix claimed, at question 8 of Tree Dispute Claim Details (form G), “this was unsuccessful” while the Respondents submitted that in 2017, they “assisted Dr Gosh and Coffs Harbour City Council to substantially clear a reserve to the south”… resulting in “significant additional sunlight to the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read The Owners Strata Plan 92669 v Elvy and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1080
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Tribunal's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on a proper interpretation of the strata plan. The court held that the relief from the Tribunal's decision was only available if the applicant could demonstrate that the decision was incorrect or that there were exceptional circumstances justifying relief. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances, and therefore, the application for relief should be refused. The court also noted that the application was made outside the time limit specified in the Act, further supporting the refusal of the application.
In conclusion, the court refused the application for relief from the Tribunal's decision. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and that the application was made outside the time limit specified in the Act. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits and the need for applicants to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify relief from a Tribunal decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(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.