Key Takeaways

• A significant consideration of the Court in determining not to make orders in relation to the Applicants’ claims of view loss was the Respondent’s evidence of their periodic pruning of the Hedges, and their commitment to pruning the Hedges in the future.
• The Court refused to make orders in relation to the severe obstruction of sunlight because a severe obstruction had occurred from the time the Applicants purchased their property in 2005.
• The windows that suffered the severe obstruction of sunlight were only added to the Applicants’ dwelling in 2011.

Background

On 16 July 2026, the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales refused an application seeking orders under the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) that three hedges at a property in Bellevue Hill be reduced in height .

The Applicants argued that three hedges (a Lilly Pilly Hedge, a Waterhousia Hedge, and a Leyland Hedge) on the Respondent’s property caused severe obstructions to views or to sunlight. The orders sought by the Applicants in relation to these hedges were:

• to reduce the height of the Lilly Pilly Hedge and make sure that in the future, it would not grow to a height that obstructs their views;
• to remove the Waterhousia Hedge and replace it with a smaller species of tree that would not grow to a height that obstructs their views; and
• to reduce the height of the Leyland Hedge (or alternatively, remove and replace it with a smaller species of tree) to make sure that in the future, sunlight would not be obstructed.

View Loss

The Applicants claimed that the Lilly Pilly and Waterhousia Hedges severely obstructed their views from a first floor living area, a bathroom and a verandah. The Applicants claimed that they once enjoyed their views from standing and sitting positions in these rooms, but because the Hedges had grown so tall, these views had been lost. They also claimed that they had once enjoyed views from within their bathtub.

While the Applicants admitted that the Lilly Pilly and Waterhousia Hedges were not obstructing their views on the day of the hearing, they argued that the Respondent had previously allowed those Hedges to reach a height where they caused severe impact on their views, and that this level of impact was likely to reoccur.

The Court in deciding whether it could make orders to prevent the future growth of the Hedges to a height that would not obstruct the Applicants’ views, considered:

• if the Applicants’ evidence of the past state of the Hedges sufficiently demonstrated that their views had been severely obstructed; and
• if the Applicant’s evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent’s past conduct in relation to the Hedges meant that the Respondent would likely allow the Hedges to regrow to a height that would obstruct the Applicants’ views

In assessing these considerations, the Court found that while the Applicants’ views were ones that were highly valuable, there was insufficient evidence proving the Applicants’ claim that in the past, the Hedges severely obstructed those views.

When taking into account the Respondent’s past conduct in relation to the Hedges, a significant factor was the Respondent’s evidence of the periodic pruning of the Hedges carried out in the past, and the Respondent’s commitment made through a contract with gardeners, to prune and maintain the Hedges in the future.

Sunlight Obstruction

The Applicants argued that the Leyland Hedge caused a severe obstruction of sunlight to five windows on the lower floor of their dwelling.

The Court agreed with the Respondent that the Leyland Hedge did not cause a severe obstruction in relation to three of these windows. There was no dispute between the parties that the Leyland Hedge did cause a severe obstruction of sunlight to the two other windows, a living area and a bedroom.

Because the parties agreed that the Leyland Hedge caused severe obstruction of sunlight,  the Court was required to consider section 14F of the Trees Act before determining whether an order should be made to prune or remove a hedge. Specifically, the Court considered:

whether the trees existed prior to the dwelling the subject of the application (or the window or part of the dwelling concerned where the dwelling has been altered or added to)…

The Respondent argued that, because a hedge of a similar height and density was in place at the time the Applicants purchased their property in 2005, the obstruction of sunlight was no more severe now than it was then. The Respondents also pointed out that the two windows to the living area and the bedroom were only added to the Applicants’ dwelling during renovations carried out in 2011.

As a result, the Court concluded that the Leyland Hedge had not caused a ‘loss’ of sunlight but rather, a continuation of a loss. The Court therefore declined to make orders in relation to the sunlight obstruction.

Decision of the Land and Environment Court 

For these reasons, the Court refused the application made by the Applicants.

Beatty Hughes & Associates (Jennifer Hughes  |  Marlon Shou  |  Ella Robertson) acted for the successful Respondent. The full judgment of Fiani v Kontopos [2026] NSWLEC 1413, can be found here.

By Jennifer Hughes, Marlon Shou & Ella Robertson

Published on 22 July 2026