Australia, June 20 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 19:

1. COMMISSIONER: Melissa Chew (the applicant), and Caroline Mary Frykberg (the respondent), share a boundary between their properties in Vaucluse. Ms Chew's land is a triangular corner block, with a dwelling facing east. The dwelling's straight rear wall was parallel and close to the parties' common boundary, which was oriented approximately north-south.

2. Mrs Frykberg's property was located west of the common boundary with a deep front yard and a dwelling facing north. The east side wall of the respondent's dwelling was parallel with the common boundary and with the rear wall of the applicant's dwelling, which extended about 6 metres (m) further south than the respondent's east side dwelling wall.

3. A formal rectangular hedge extended from near the southern end of Mrs Frykberg's dwelling for about 14.9m along and beside the common boundary. The hedge enclosed the respondent's conservatory, outdoor living area, and swimming pool at the rear of her dwelling and screened these areas from oversight from Ms Chew's property, otherwise available through the applicant's west facing study and bathroom windows.

4. The hedge comprised 15 xCupressocyparis leylandii 'Leighton's Green' (Leyland Cypress trees) with an average height of 5.15m and trunk diameter's ranging from 0.15-0.25m, at ground level. In 2007, the trees were planted in a broad raised garden bed to replace a hedge that had grown into disrepair. Murraya paniculata hedges, albeit not as tall, performed a similar role on the garden's western side.

5. Two tall Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig trees) that provided symmetry at the rear of Mrs Frykberg's back yard, predated her 1997 occupation. One of the Fig trees (Tree 1), growing close to the common boundary, overhung Ms Chew's garage. Since purchasing her property in April 2017, Ms Chew had endured multiple instances of tree root blockage and damage to her sewer pipes, which were primarily located behind her dwelling and under the rear yard close to the common boundary and flowed south to the sewer main beyond the applicant's garage. Some sewer pipes also branched across Ms Chew's back yard.

6. Though the genus or species of roots blocking pipes had not been identified, Ms Chew contended that Tree 1 was probably responsible and sought its removal. As the hedge was close to previously damaged sewer pipes and was allegedly also severely obstructing sunlight to her windows, Ms Chew proposed the hedge was also removed, or at least, significantly reduced in height to allow increased sunlight to enter the study and bathroom.

7. The respondent resisted intervention with the trees as she highly valued her privacy, aesthetic and environmental contributions of the trees, and the not insignificant costs involved with the proposed tree removal and or pruning. Further, Mrs Frykberg had previously sought permission from Woollahra Council (Council) for removal of the Weeping Fig trees, but Council had refused permission. In any case, the respondent was not satisfied that Ms Chew had provided sufficient adequate evidence to justify the proposed intervention with the trees.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196e63b9a0c94b50840dfcbc)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.