Wiseman, Matthews v RPD Qld Pty Ltd A.C.N. 087696080

In the matter of Wiseman and Matthews versus RPD Qld Pty Ltd, the applicants sought to appeal a tribunal decision that reduced the height of a line of Queensland Tulip trees on the eastern boundary of the tree-keepers land to six metres. The applicants argued that the trees, at their current height, severely obstructed the view they had enjoyed when they took possession of their property. They contended that the tribunal's order had the practical effect of restoring only part of a protected view and that the tribunal incorrectly applied view sharing principles, rendering the maintenance of sitting views hard to justify in development cases. Furthermore, the applicants claimed that the tribunal failed to consider the appropriateness of reinstating their sitting verandah views, and that the tribunal's tree order discretion miscarried.

The legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal correctly applied view sharing principles and whether it had failed to consider the appropriateness of reinstating the applicants' sitting verandah views. The court found that the tribunal's application of view sharing principles was incorrect and that it had failed to consider the appropriateness of reinstating the applicants' sitting verandah views. The court held that the tribunal's tree order discretion miscarried, and that the tribunal's decision should be amended to reflect the correct height of the trees. The court also noted that the tribunal had failed to consider the applicants' submissions regarding the appropriateness of reinstating their sitting verandah views, and that this failure contributed to the miscarriage of discretion.

The appeal was allowed, and the court amended Order 1(a) of the tribunal decision to reflect the correct height of the trees. The court found that the tribunal's application of view sharing principles was incorrect and that it had failed to consider the appropriateness of reinstating the applicants' sitting verandah views. The court held that the tribunal's tree order discretion miscarried, and that the tribunal's decision should be amended to reflect the correct height of the trees. The applicants' submissions regarding the appropriateness of reinstating their sitting verandah views were also considered by the court, and the tribunal's failure to consider these submissions contributed to the miscarriage of discretion. The tribunal's decision was therefore amended to reflect the correct height of the trees, and the appeal was allowed.