/

/

Casula v Wong [2026] NSWLEC 1063 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Casula v Wong

[2026] NSWLEC 1063

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-02-13|Before: Horton C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-02-13

Before

Horton C

Catchwords

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Leyland Cypress – whether
severely obstructs views – orders

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Leyland Cypress – whetherseverely obstructs views – orders

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Casula v Wong [2026] NSWLEC 1063

Hearing dates: 3 February 2026

Date of orders: 13 February 2026

Decision date: 13 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 2

Before: Horton C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The application is granted.
(2) The Respondent is to prune the Hedge, such that at all times in the future, the Hedge is maintained at a height of 3m above the level of the rear planter bed in 28 Euroka Street, within 45 days of these orders.
(3) The work required in Order (2) is to be carried out at the expense of the Respondent and using the services of a suitably qualified and experienced arborist, horticulturalist or landscape gardener (minimum AQF level 3) with all appropriate insurances, and in accordance with Safe Work Australia’s ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’, 2016.
(4) Should access to the Applicant’s property be required to undertake the tree works or tidy the site, the Applicant must grant such access to the Respondent’s contractors upon receipt of at least 72 hours written notice of the date and approximate start time of the works.
(5) All exhibits are retained.

Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Leyland Cypress – whether severely obstructs views – orders

Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 2.2

COMMISSIONER: The topography of the Northbridge peninsula falls to the north in the direction of Sailor’s Bay, affording a view of water for many homes located on its upper slopes.
A property at 15 Dalkeith Street Northbridge is one such property that has, according to the Applicant in these proceedings, Ms Antonia Casula, enjoyed such a view since she and her husband, now deceased, moved to the site sometime in 1990.
More recently, a hedge located to the rear of a property at 28 Euroka Street has obscured or obstructed that view according to Ms Casula, represented in these proceedings by Ms Lucy Casula, her daughter, as authorised agent.
On 30 September 2025, Ms Casula filed a Tree Dispute Application (the Application) in Class 2 division of the Court’s jurisdiction under s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (‘the Trees Act’), seeking orders for the hedge to be trimmed and maintained at a height of 2.5m.
At the time of lodgement, Ms Casula asserts the hedge was in the order of 6-7m in height. Pruning undertaken by the Respondent, Ms Makiko Wong, has reduced the height in more recent times.
In accordance with the Court’s practice in such matters, the hearing took place on site, and the parties appeared in person. The Court, in the company of the parties and their relevant experts, was taken to the rear yard of both properties, including certain vantage points at 15 Dalkeith Street identified in the Application that will shortly become relevant.
In summary, the rear yard of 28 Euroka Street is terraced and has a steep rise in elevation from rear glazed doors to the rear living room, to a high point at the rear of the site in the location of the hedge, planted just inside the boundary fence to 17 Dalkeith Street behind.
The Wong family live at 28 Euroka Street, and enjoy time in the rear yard. I note here that while Ms Makiko Wong is named as Respondent in these proceedings, she was not present on the day, for reasons stated at the commencement of the onsite view and was represented on the day by Mr Brendan Wong.
The rear yard of 28 Euroka Street adjoins the rear yard of 17 Dalkeith Street that also slopes, although not with the same degree of terracing. The rear yard at 17 Dalkeith Street is essentially defined by a section of sloping lawn closest to the dwelling, and a section of lower paving around a swimming pool that virtually occupies the full width of the site, surrounded by low hedges. A paved coping of around 500mm wide separates the swimming pool from a row of planting in the rear yard of 17 Dalkeith Street and from the fence shared with 28 Euroka Street.
The rear yard of 15 Dalkeith Street is also predominantly sloping lawn, albeit more naturalistic in its presentation. Gentle terracing and small areas of sandstone rock shelf are evident with little mature vegetation beyond two small trees.

It is commonly held that the application at [4] relates to a row of 8 Cypress Pines, otherwise known as Cypressus leylandii - also known as Leighton Green – located along the rear boundary of 28 Euroka Street and with a height greater than 2.5m (together, the Hedge).
In an affidavit deposed by the owner of 28 Euroka Street dated 18 December 2025 (Exhibit 1), and read unopposed, Ms Makiko Wong states the Hedge was planted prior to May 2012 when the Wong family purchased the property. At that time, the Hedge was approximately 5-6m in height.
Ms Wong states that pruning of the Hedge has occurred in 2017, 2023 and 2025 – each time by qualified arborists, while gentle pruning is also completed by Ms Wong and her husband.
At the onsite view, the Court’s attention was drawn to pruning wounds at the upper levels of the Hedge located towards the side boundaries, being the more mature individuals within the hedge.
A large lemon scented gum and other trees also stood in the rear yard at the time of purchase, until sometime in March 2013 when Willoughby City Council approved the removal of the Lemon Scented Gum (the Gum).
Until its removal, Ms Wong asserts the canopy of the Gum had blocked views, along with other vegetation on other properties located between Ms Casula’s property and the waters of Sailor’s Bay. To this end, Ms Wong relies on photographic images annexed to her affidavit.
More recently, Ms Wong deposes that a middle section of the Cypress Pines began to die back in the later months of 2018 while both ends of the Hedge towards the side boundaries remained healthy. While poisoning was suspected, those individuals affected by die back were replaced and, sometime in 2023, a police report was filed.
The Hedge also provides the Wong family with privacy while in the rear yard of the property which is a concern of some moment to the Wong family and for reasons that are set out in Exhibit 1, but which I choose not to articulate here other than to give emphasis to the value the Wong family reasonably place on privacy.
Due to the rise in topography to the rear of 28 Euroka Street, and the further rise to properties located along Dalkeith Street at the higher elevation, Ms Wong states the Hedge acts to screen sightlines, particularly from elevated positions in neighbouring properties located to the rear.

In an affidavit deposed by Ms Lucy Casula dated 18 December 2025, Ms Casula recalls the view to water through the canopy of the Gum and relies on a photographic image of family members taken in 1995 to demonstrate such a view, said to be achieved through a canopy in which “The majority of the foliage grew at the ends of the branches, which were otherwise relatively bare.” (Affidavit par 18)
In her oral evidence, Ms Casula further explains the view to water was intersected by the lower branches of the Gum, but that such an obstruction was minor.
Upon the removal of the Gum in 2013, there was no improvement to the view of the water but there was a more expansive view of the sky.
According to Ms Casula’s affidavit, the view to water was subsequently affected by the growth of the Hedge sometime in and after 2013.
As stated at [6], the views now said by Ms Casula to be affected are identified in the Application at eight locations to the rear of the dwelling at 15 Dalkeith Street, re-produced below.
In written submissions prepared on behalf of Ms Casula by counsel, the height of the Hedge is said to unreasonably interfere with the views to the land and water interface of Middle Harbour, the open waters of Sailor’s Bay and Middle Harbour, and the views of the surrounding district from 15 Dalkeith Street.
In short, the Respondent submits that the view to Sailor’s Bay, that cannot be described as a significant view, was historically obstructed by the Gum, and to the extent the view is obscured today, it is to no more than a minor extent.
Furthermore, as the obstruction to the view is not severe, the Court’s jurisdiction is not enlivened to make the orders sought by Ms Casula. In the alternative, should the Court consider it has jurisdiction to make orders, the Court should consider the particular need for privacy for the Wong family in their rear yard and take into consideration the character of the immediate locality where hedges of the same or similar species are common and exceed the height of the Hedge the subject of these proceedings.

In addition to submissions by the parties, the Court was also assisted by experts in town planning that prepared single expert reports assessing the impact of the Hedge on views from 15 Dalkeith Street.
Mr Eli Gescheit prepared an expert report on behalf of Ms Wong filed 23 December 2025 (Exhibit 2), and Mr Michael Haynes prepared an expert report on behalf of Ms Casula and filed 12 December 2025. (Exhibit A, Tab 3)
It is relevant to note that the expert reports were authored following initial visits to the sites sometime after the pruning of the Hedge in November 2025.
Counsel for Ms Casula submits that as a result, Mr Gescheit’s expert report assesses the visual impact of the Hedge in the state in which he found it, and did not consider a height of 6-7m as it was at the time the Application was lodged. Accordingly, Mr Gescheit’s assessment cannot have taken into account the severity of the obstruction caused to the view, best depicted in an image identified in Mr Haynes’ expert report as Photo 4, re-produced below.
In essence, both experts describe the local character and context within which the site is located and undertake an assessment of views and privacy as primary contentions.
In doing so, Mr Gescheit acknowledges his reference at pp 2-4 of his report to controls in the Willoughby Development Control Plan 2023 (WDCP) relating to development in the C4 Zone does not address the correct zoning for the site, set out at [50]. Nevertheless, Mr Gescheit’s evidence is that the references are helpful to provide context, given the detailed descriptions of Northbridge in the excerpts.
As stated briefly at [27], the Respondent drew the Court’s attention to similar hedges in the vicinity of the site that it relies on as evidence of the character of the locality including such hedges as a feature of rear yards and boundary planting.
Mr Haynes describes the context in oral evidence to comprise canopy trees, bushland and urban elements. Relevantly, a valley leads the eye towards the “prized view” of Sailor’s Bay to the north east. The relationship between the two properties in dispute in this case, the district and the waters of Sailor’s Bay are perhaps best illustrated in Figure 5 of Mr Haynes’ expert report, re-produced below.

Mr Gescheit describes the view enjoyed from those locations at [24] as a “180 degree view of the surrounding area (and a restricted view of water associated with Sailor’s Bay)” (Exhibit 2, p 2). As such, the greater value lies in the broader district views that are enjoyed directly over 26 Euroka Street, and not the diagonal view to the “slice of water” that he describes as “an extremely minor portion of the overall 180 degree view” (Exhibit 2, p 10).
That view that is enjoyed is a side view, which is harder to protect and does not include the Northbridge Marina, which Mr Gescheit believes would add more value if visible. In any event, the view that is enjoyed was improved by the removal of the Gum in 2013 by the Respondent.
To now make those orders sought by Ms Casula would open up a view to rooftops and solar panels at 30 Euroka Street, which is less desirable than the obscuring effect on those elements provided by the Hedge today. A Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Urbaine and annexed to Mr Gescheit illustrates the rooftop and solar panels, re-produced below.
Furthermore, those views at [24] are enjoyed from the rear deck of a single storey dwelling in an area subject to a height of buildings standard that permits development to a height of 8.5m. In the event development on Ms Casula’s land was proposed to this height, views to Sailor’s Bay would improve – a point demonstrated by a photographic image taken by drone, re-produced below.
Both experts undertake an assessment of the impact on views from 15 Dalkeith Street consistent with the planning principle set out in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.
In assessing the affected view, consistent with the first step of Tenacity, Mr Haynes relies on a series of photographic images dating from 2001 to 2025 that he believes demonstrate the gradual loss of view to the land/water interface in Sailor’s Bay.
In assessing what is known as the second step in Tenacity, Mr Haynes characterises the view, when seen from a standing position, as being obtained across a combination of the side and rear boundaries of 15 Dalkeith Street, 17 Dalkeith Street and of 28 Euroka Street. Mr Haynes also cites the relevant planning controls that inform development in the R2 Zone, including a rear setback control of 8m applicable to the subject properties in the WDCP, a 43% landscape area and 0.4 to 1 Floor Space Ratio control.
When these controls are taken together with the generous and consistent rear building alignment in the local area that results in a separation distance of approximately 45m between the rear of dwelling houses fronting Dalkeith Street and the rear setback to dwellings fronting Eureka Street and the sloping topography of the land, Mr Haynes does not believe sightlines to Sailor’s Bay are subject to change.
In assessing the third step in Tenacity, Mr Haynes relies on photos taken before and after pruning undertaken in November 2025, such as the image at [31], to conclude the affect on the view, even after pruning, is severe and will be devastating should the Hedge be allowed to regrow.

In my view, this chronology of correspondence outlined above, coupled with a request to the Community Justice Centre, sufficiently demonstrates reasonable steps taken over a prolonged period to resolve the matter, in accordance with s 14E(1)(a)(i) of the Trees Act.
I am also satisfied that the trees forming the Hedge at 28 Euroka Street are severely obstructing the view from 15 Dalkeith Street, when the Hedge is at a height of the kind depicted in the photographic image at [31].
While the Hedge had been pruned at the time of the hearing, absent agreement between the parties, or seemingly an order of the Court, the severe obstruction is likely to recur when and as the Hedge continues to grow.
Such an interpretation of the provision at s 14E(2)(a)(ii) is consistent with decisions of the Court that likewise involve this species of tree, and as the Court found in Steber v Job [2019] NSWLEC 1308 at [34]-[45]: Condon v Scott [2021] NSWLEC 1160 at [19].
I note the legal representative for Ms Wong identified old pruning wounds at the upper reaches of the Hedge, and asserted regrowth does not spring from such wounds. I do not understand this assertion to also suggest that the height of the Hedge is limited to the height of those wounds. In fact, regrowth is clearly underway from below the pruning wounds and so the trees forming the Hedge are likely to once again obstruct the view to Sailors Bay from 15 Dalkeith Street.
Once again, if growth of a height depicted in the photographic image at [31] is achieved, the view will once again be severely obstructed. Whether the view is iconic or not, and whether it includes a view of the Sailor’s Bay matters not, in my view. Likewise, while the view is enjoyed from those locations at [24] in a diagonal orientation that is partly achieved over side boundaries, the subdivision pattern, separation distances and generous rear yards in this particular locality combine to make that sightline not unreasonable to protect in some form.
I do not consider the view to be a side view, but a diagonal view across the rear yard of at least 2 properties – where the character and topography distinguish the sightline from what might be commonly thought a side view. I accept Mr Haynes’ evidence that the 40-45m separation between the rear walls of dwellings in Dalkeith Street and Euroka Street is an aspect of the character of the block that is not likely to change and the area is not an area undergoing transition to higher density or greater height that might otherwise progressively encroach on the district views enjoyed by the elevated position of dwellings fronting Dalkeith Street.
As I am satisfied that s 14E(2)(a)(ii) is met for the hedge, due to the severe obstruction of views from a dwelling, there is a need to consider the balancing of interests required by s 14E(2)(b) that provides:

The trees, which were planted after the dwelling at 15 Dalkeith Street was constructed (s 14F(b)), are located at the rear of 28 Euroka Street, where the topography of that site is at its highest elevation (s 14F(a)). The trees forming the Hedge have been recorded at a height of somewhere between 5-7m (s 14F(c)).
Leighton Green is regarded as an undesirable species exempt from permit approval under Pt G4.2 of the WDCP and is a species of the kind listed in Attachment 1 of the WDCP so that no permit or development application to clear vegetation or prune or remove a tree is required (s 14F(d)) and where there are no relevant development consent requirements or conditions relating to the subject sites in this matter (s14F(e)).
I take it from this that the Hedge does not have any identified historical, cultural, social or scientific value (s14F(f)), and as shown in Dempsey v Cignetti [2023] NSWLEC 1224, while this species of tree may be ideal for use as hedges and wind protection on rural properties, Leighton Green is “infamous for causing obstruction of views and sunlight in urban areas, because of their foliage density, rapid growth rate, and potential to reach about 20 m in height”.
For the reasons at [65], the Hedge makes a limited contribution to the local ecosystem and biodiversity (s 14F(g)), but a greater contribution to the natural landscape and scenic value of the locality given similar if not identical species in the immediate vicinity of the site (s14F(h)).
As the Hedge is not visible from the public domain, there is little if any intrinsic value of the Hedge to public amenity (s 14F(i)).
The Hedge is planted in an area of the rear yard at 28 Euroka Street that is clearly built up off an underlying topography of rock and soil that is retained by courses of brick and stone. As such, the trees forming the Hedge do not, to my understanding, perform any role in supporting soil stability and are at such an elevation that it is unlikely they interact with the water table (s14F(j)).
Ms Wong deposes that past pruning has been undertaken by qualified arborists and, as stated briefly at [66], the Leighton Green species is known to take well to pruning (s 14F(k)).
For reasons that have been adequately set out above, it is commonly held that the trees forming the Hedge do, and should, afford privacy to those in the rear yard of 28 Euroka Street and contribute to the amenity of the area, given the profusion of hedges and hedging as a feature of garden design in adjacent properties, including 17 Dalkeith Street (s14F(l)).
Mr Gescheit identifies the roof and solar panels on the house at 30 Euroka Street as a built obstruction to the view that would continue to obstruct the view to Sailors Bay (s14F(m)).
Subsection 14F(n) of the Trees Act deals with those steps taken by the parties in this matter to rectify the obstruction, which are set out above at [13] and [54].
Leighton Green is not deciduous and so the obstruction of the view is not reduced in winter months when other species lose their leaves (s 14F(p)) and so the nature and extent of obstruction that has been described at length above is not affected by the seasons (s 14F(q)) at those locations identified at [24] (s14F(r)).
Having considered those matters above, and the severity of the obstruction of the view to Sailor’s Bay, I find it appropriate and reasonable to make orders in accordance with s 14D(1)(b) for the Hedge to be pruned.
In doing so, it is relevant to note that the height of 2.5m initially sought by Ms Casula is amended to recognise the importance of privacy to the Wong family and a pruning height of 3m is now sought.
When the steep fall in topography from Dalkeith Street to Euroka Street is considered, I am satisfied that the Hedge, when pruned at a height of 3m, will afford a reasonable degree of privacy to the rear yard at 28 Euroka Street from the elevated vantage points in dwellings fronting Dalkeith Street, while affording a view to Sailor’s Bay from the rear of 15 Dalkeith Street.
Pruning to such a height will also assure privacy from the pool coping cited at [9], and so maintain privacy to the rear yard from 17 Dalkeith Street.