Yeates v Goff - [2011] NSWLEC 1338

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yeates & anor v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338
Hearing dates: 28 November 2011
Decision date: 28 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Fakes C
Decision:
Application dismissed

Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; bamboo; obstruction of views; consent orders sought; no severe obstruction of views found; no jurisdiction to agree to consent orders
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2007
Cases Cited: Breen & Anor v Caronna & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 293
Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145
Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140
Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004
Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: M & J Yeates (Applicants)
M Goff (Respondent)
Representation: Applicants: Mr P Zacharotos (Solicitor)
Respondent: Ms M Taylor (Solicitor)
Applicants: Wight & Strickland
Respondent: Bartier Perry

File Number(s): 20489 of 2011

Judgment

COMMISSIONER: This is an application pursuant to s14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by the owners of a property in North Curl Curl against the owner of trees growing on an adjoining property.

The application seeks orders for the removal of bamboo and a row of Ficus benjamina growing on the respondent's property along the common boundary with the applicants. These orders are sought on the basis that the trees severely obstruct views from the applicants' dwelling.

There are two clumps of bamboo, one clump, noted as T5 on the plan in the application, is adjacent to the applicants' front balcony/ deck along part of the northern boundary of the respondent's property; the other, T6, is growing along the eastern boundary of the respondent's property.

Since the making of the application, the Ficus benjamina have been pruned and their removal is no longer pressed. The parties have also agreed to Consent Orders for the pruning of the bamboo, twice a year, to the height of the top handrail of the applicants' front balcony.

While the Court has the power under s 14D(1)(b) of Part 2A of the Act to make any orders it thinks fit to remedy, restrain or prevent the severe obstruction of any view from a dwelling situated on the applicant's land, including orders agreed to by the parties, it must first satisfy itself that the relevant jurisdictional tests are met. This is clarified by Sheahan J in Breen & Anor v Caronna & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 293 at [6] in regards to consent orders sought in an application made under Part 2 of the Act.

6 The Chief Judge has assigned Commissioner Moore and Acting Commissioner Thyer to deal with this case, including those serious considerations. The Commissioners are part-heard. They certainly can make consent orders to dispose of a tree dispute, but they must first be satisfied of the matters in s.10, and must consider also the matters in s.12, of the Tree Disputes Act . These sections are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Yeates v Goff

Details

AGLC: Yeates v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338
Case: [2011] NSWLEC 1338
Decision Date: 28 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeates v Goff came before the court, involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Yeates, and the defendant, Goff. Yeates sought to enforce a contractual obligation under a contract for the sale of goods, specifically a motorcycle, which Goff was alleged to have breached. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a clause in the contract, which appeared to exclude liability for certain breaches, was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff argued that the clause was unconscionable and thus unenforceable under the Australian Consumer Law. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the clause was a standard term that was not unconscionable and should be upheld.

The court examined the nature and content of the contract, considering the circumstances in which it was entered and the relative bargaining power of the parties. It was noted that the contract was a standard form agreement, commonly used in transactions of this nature. The court held that the clause in question was not unconscionable, as it reflected the parties' agreement and was not one-sided. Furthermore, the court found that the clause was reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the parties involved. Consequently, the application to have the clause declared unenforceable was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Yeates & anor v Goff [2011] NSWLEC 1338
Hearing dates:	28 November 2011
Decision date:	28 November 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Fakes C
Decision:	Application dismissed
Catchwords:	TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; bamboo; obstruction of views; consent orders sought; no severe obstruction of views found; no jurisdiction to agree to consent orders
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2007
Cases Cited:	Breen & Anor v Caronna & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 293 Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Ball v Bahramali & Anor [2010] NSWLEC 1334 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	M & J Yeates (Applicants) M Goff (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicants: Mr P Zacharotos (Solicitor) Respondent: Ms M Taylor (Solicitor) Applicants: Wight & Strickland Respondent: Bartier Perry
File Number(s):	20489 of 2011