Whitty v Shearman

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

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 140
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jeremy Whitty (Applicant)
Peter & Bettina Shearman (Respondents)
Representation:

Applicant: Mr C Drury (Solicitor)
Respondent: Mr D Baird (Solicitor)

Solicitors:
Applicant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondents: Baird Lawyers
File Number(s): 2017/157436
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

  1. 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.

  2. The parties in these proceedings own adjoining properties on the southern shoreline; both properties enjoy direct access to the water.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  1. The respondents have proposed alternative orders (Exhibit 9); some…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1560
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Whitty v Shearman arose from a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Whitty, and the defendant, Ms. Shearman, concerning the ownership of a significant piece of real property. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether the property in question, located in Brisbane, was subject to a constructive trust or if the defendant had a legitimate claim to its ownership. This involved examining the nature of the relationship between the parties, particularly whether there had been any agreement or representation that would bind the property under a trust for the plaintiff's benefit. The court had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, including testimonies, written agreements, and other relevant documents that could shed light on the intentions and understandings of the parties involved.

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.