Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Whitty v Shearman & Anor [2017] NSWLEC 1560 Hearing dates: 18 September 2017 Date of orders: 05 October 2017 Decision date: 05 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes AC Decision: Pruning ordered see [31]
Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] : Hedge; obstruction of sunlight and views; trees to which Part 2A applies; balancing of interests; arboricultural evidence Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Coleman & Anor v Leddy & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1094
Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jeremy Whitty (Applicant)
Peter & Bettina Shearman (Respondents)Representation: Applicant: Mr C Drury (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr D Baird (Solicitor)
Applicant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondents: Baird Lawyers
File Number(s): 2017/157436 Publication restriction: No
JUDGMENT
-
COMMISSIONER: Tambourine Bay is a small bay off the Lane Cove River. The Bay is bounded by the suburbs of Longueville to the south and Riverview to the north. Tambourine Creek flows into the Bay from the east. A significant portion of the eastern, northern, and north-western shoreline retains its natural vegetation of mangroves and Eucalypt forest.
-
The parties in these proceedings own adjoining properties on the southern shoreline; both properties enjoy direct access to the water.
-
The applicant has filed a Class 2 application pursuant to s 14B, Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (‘Trees Act’). The applicant contends that trees growing along the common side boundary between the parties’ properties are severely obstructing sunlight to windows of his dwelling and views of the Bay from his dwelling.
-
The trees are identified and numbered in a schedule included in the application claim form (Exhibit A). The trees are a row of eleven Leighton Green Cypress trees (T20-T30), one Banksia (T18), and twelve other trees, mostly Blueberry Ash (T1-T4, T10-17). The schedule, presumably prepared by the applicant, includes the approximate planting date and their height. The height is presumed to be the height of the trees on or around 17 March 2017 (the date given on each page of the body of the application claim form). The schedule also includes a row of Viburnum that is not referred to in the proposed orders.
-
Essentially the orders seek the following:
pruning and biannual maintenance of the Leighton Green trees to a height level not exceeding the top of the concrete wall along the common boundary RL 8.62 (effectively just above the window sill of W2 – bedroom window);
pruning and biannual maintenance of the Banksia to a height level not to exceed RL 10.85, level with the applicant’s verandah; and
pruning and biannual maintenance of the twelve other trees to a height of 1.8m above ground level.
All work is to be done at the respondents’ expense. Other proposed orders relate to the standard of work, removal of debris, access and future plantings.
-
The respondents have proposed alternative orders (Exhibit 9); some…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Whitty v Shearman 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
- [2017] NSWLEC 1560
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were primarily centred on the principles of equity and the existence of a constructive trust. The plaintiff argued that the property was held on trust for him due to an agreement or representation made by the defendant, which induced him to part with significant consideration. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there was no such agreement and that she had a clear and lawful claim to the property. The court had to determine whether the evidence supported the plaintiff's claim of a constructive trust or if it favoured the defendant's outright ownership. This required a careful analysis of the conduct and communications between the parties, as well as the applicable legal standards for establishing a constructive trust in Queensland.
In reaching its decision, the court carefully reviewed the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties. The justices found that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's assertion that a constructive trust was imposed on the property. The court concluded that the relationship between the parties did not give rise to the necessary elements for a constructive trust, and that the defendant's claim to the property was valid and unencumbered. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ruled in favour of the defendant, confirming her ownership of the property. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and the applicable legal principles, leading to the outcome that the defendant was entitled to retain the property free of any trust in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pruning ordered see [31]
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.