Hedge-row: Read the judge’s scathing verdict after a woman took her neighbour to court over complaints his trees were blocking her sunlight
- Woman claimed hedge blocked sunlight to home
- NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed case
A woman who claimed her neighbour’s hedge was blocking sunlight to her property has been slammed for wasting the court’s time.
Lynette May Schulze, from Port Macquarie on the NSW mid north coast, claimed her neighbour Jones Russell’s property severely obstructed sunlight to four windows of her home.
Schulze, who has lived in the same property since 1980, had an agreement with Russell to allow her to trim the 17 lilly pilly trees along the common boundary of the two properties.
Russell’s property has been leased to tenants after he purchasing it in 2018.
Schulze made an application to the NSW Land and Environment Court last year to have her neighbour’s hedge either trimmed every three months or completely removed.
The NSW Land and Environment Court has ruled the trees were not obstructing sunlight
She argued the tenants had been ‘verbally and physically aggressive’ when she had tried to trim the trees to the height of the 1.8m fence because they wanted the trees to be taller in a bid for more privacy.
The woman claimed her neighbour’s hedge blocked sunlight to her home
The trees measured about 2.5m tall at the time of the application.
Russell submitted that he too would prefer the hedge to grow about 1.5m above the 1.8m fence height.
Schulze also claimed in her application to the court her diminishing physical capacity was starting to inhibit her ability to trim the hedge was Russell was reusing to help with the maintenance.
Acting Commissioner of the Court John Douglas refused Schulze’s application after an onsite hearing.
‘The applicant’s nominated district views of native and urban vegetation were not obstructed by the hedge, and nor was sunlight to nominated windows obstructed by the hedge,’ he said.
‘The hedge was located beyond a sloping lawn at least 10m east of the applicant’s dwelling.’
Mr Douglas said Schulze had wasted everyone’s time, including the court, in making the application in the first place.
‘It appeared that Ms Schulze disliked the conduct of the respondent’s tenants, and that the respondent would not yield to the applicant’s preferences regarding management of the hedge,’ he said.
‘It should have been obvious to the applicant that the hedge did not obstruct any sunlight to windows of her dwelling nor any views from her dwelling.
‘I acknowledge that the applicant’s primary concerns were obstructions that may occur if the hedge grows much taller in the future, but nonetheless, this application has wasted the respondent’s time, and that of the Court, along with public resources.’
