A NSW girl who claimed her neighbour’s hedge was blocking daylight to her property has been slammed for losing the court docket’s time
Port Macquarie girl Lynette Might Schulze claimed her neighbor 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 widespread boundary of the 2 properties.
Russell’s property has been leased to tenants after he bought it in 2018.
Schulze made an utility to the NSW Land and Setting Court docket final 12 months to have her neighbour’s hedge both trimmed each three months or fully eliminated.
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 timber measured about 2.5m tall on the time of the appliance.
Russell submitted that he too would like 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 capability to trim the hedge Russell was reusing to assist with the upkeep.
Performing Commissioner of the Court docket 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, nor was daylight to the nominated home windows obstructed by the hedge,” he mentioned.
“The hedge was positioned past a sloping garden no less than 10m east of the applicant’s dwelling.”
Mr Douglas mentioned Schulze had wasted everybody’s time, together with the court docket, in making the appliance 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 the administration of the hedge,” he mentioned.
“It ought to have been apparent to the applicant that the hedge didn’t impede any daylight to the home windows of her dwelling nor any views from her dwelling.
“I acknowledge that the applicant’s major considerations had been obstructions that will happen if the hedge grows a lot taller sooner or later, however however, this utility has wasted the respondent’s time, and that of the Court docket, together with public sources.”
