Werndly v Orchard

The case of Werndly v Orchard involved a dispute between neighbours over the obstruction caused by a Privet tree belonging to the defendants, Timothy and Christine Orchard. The plaintiffs, Werndly, sought relief under the Neighbourhood Disputes Tribunal Act 2013, alleging that the tree obstructed their view from their dwelling, amounting to an unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their property. The dispute was heard and determined by the Neighbourhood Disputes Tribunal, presided over by the Chairperson, Ms. C. A. B. A.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the obstruction caused by the Privet tree amounted to an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. The Tribunal had to consider the totality of the outlook from the plaintiffs' dwelling, and assess the severity of the obstruction, as well as other relevant factors such as the nature and duration of the interference, and the balance of interests between the parties. The Tribunal also had to consider the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' expectations regarding their view from their property.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Tribunal found that the Privet tree did indeed obstruct the plaintiffs' view from their dwelling to some extent. However, the Tribunal also found that the obstruction was not so severe as to amount to an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. The Tribunal noted that the plaintiffs had not established any particular expectations regarding their view from their property, and that the Orchards had a legitimate interest in maintaining the tree on their property. The Tribunal concluded that the balance of interests favoured the Orchards, and that the plaintiffs' application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal did, however, accept the Orchards' undertaking to remove the Privet tree within four weeks and allow the plaintiffs to replace it with a suitable tree. The Tribunal noted that this would provide a satisfactory resolution to the dispute, and that it was not necessary to make any further orders. The Tribunal dismissed the plaintiffs' application, but accepted the Orchards' undertaking to remove the tree and replace it with a suitable tree within four weeks.