Pt 2 application — neighbouring trees — risk of damage — risk of further damage — Pt 2A application — obstruction of sunlight — obstruction of views — applicants purchase date — orders for pruning and fence repair
Quick Take
1Where a hedge exceeded 2.5m at the time the applicant purchased the property, Pt 2A of the Trees Act does not entitle the applicant to orders creating greater sunlight or views than existed at the purchase date, consistent with the legislative intent identified in McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280 and the 2009 statutory review.
2Even relatively minor physical damage to a dividing fence caused by bamboo culms engages s 10(2)(a) jurisdiction under Pt 2, but the extent of pre-existing damage at the applicant's purchase date is relevant to apportionment of repair costs under the caveat emptor principle from Liang v Marsh [2011] NSWLEC 1026.
3Leaf litter and natural tree debris falling onto neighbouring land does not constitute 'damage to property' under s 7 of the Trees Act per Robson v Leischke and the Barker principle, and no exceptional circumstances were found to displace that principle.
