Hedge-row: Learn the decide’s scathing verdict after a girl took her neighbour to court docket over complaints his timber have been blocking her daylight
- Girl claimed hedge blocked daylight to residence
- NSW Land and Setting Courtroom dismissed case
A girl who claimed her neighbour’s hedge was blocking daylight to her property has been slammed for losing the court docket’s time.
Lynette Could Schulze, from Port Macquarie on the NSW mid north coast, claimed her neighbour Jones Russell’s property severely obstructed daylight to 4 home windows of her residence.
Schulze, who has lived in the identical property since 1980, had an settlement with Russell to permit her to trim the 17 lilly pilly timber alongside the frequent boundary of the 2 properties.
Russell’s property has been leased to tenants after he buying it in 2018.
Schulze made an utility to the NSW Land and Setting Courtroom final yr to have her neighbour’s hedge both trimmed each three months or utterly eliminated.
The NSW Land and Setting Courtroom has dominated the timber weren’t obstructing daylight
She argued the tenants had been ‘verbally and bodily aggressive’ when she had tried to trim the timber to the peak of the 1.8m fence as a result of they needed the timber to be taller in a bid for extra privateness.
The girl claimed her neighbour’s hedge blocked daylight to her residence
The timber measured about 2.5m tall on the time of the applying.
Russell submitted that he too would favor the hedge to develop about 1.5m above the 1.8m fence top.
Schulze additionally claimed in her utility to the court docket her diminishing bodily capability was beginning to inhibit her skill to trim the hedge was Russell was reusing to assist with the upkeep.
Performing Commissioner of the Courtroom John Douglas refused Schulze’s utility after an onsite listening to.
‘The applicant’s nominated district views of native and concrete vegetation weren’t obstructed by the hedge, and nor was daylight to nominated home windows obstructed by the hedge,’ he stated.
‘The hedge was situated past a sloping garden at the least 10m east of the applicant’s dwelling.’
Mr Douglas stated Schulze had wasted everybody’s time, together with the court docket, in making the applying within the first place.
‘It appeared that Ms Schulze disliked the conduct of the respondent’s tenants, and that the respondent wouldn’t yield to the applicant’s preferences concerning administration of the hedge,’ he stated.
‘It ought to have been apparent to the applicant that the hedge didn’t impede any daylight to home windows of her dwelling nor any views from her dwelling.
‘I acknowledge that the applicant’s major issues have been obstructions that will happen if the hedge grows a lot taller sooner or later, however nonetheless, this utility has wasted the respondent’s time, and that of the Courtroom, together with public sources.’
