Wiedemann v Warwick [2026] QCAT 154

[2] The granny flat veranda overlooks the rear of the respondents' property, including the garden and pool area. But for the bamboo trees the subject of this application, the granny flat would have a clear view into the respondents' garden and pool area, from the veranda which runs the entire length of the granny flat facing the respondents' property.

[3] The previous owner of the respondents' property was the initial respondent to these proceedings. The respondents acquired their property in late April 2025, approximately two and a half years after this proceeding was commenced by the applicants, and were then substituted as respondents.

[4] In the period shortly after the applicants constructed the granny flat, the original respondent planted a screen of bamboo plants approximately 1 metre from the boundary fence between the applicants' and respondents' properties, which planting extends for approximately 10 metres along the boundary line. The then respondent also erected a support/barrier for the screen, comprising upright metal stanchions with heavy gauge metal cables running between the stanchions. The barrier construction had the effect of holding back the bamboo screen from leaning over the boundary fence as the bamboo grew to heights of approximately 8 metres at the highest, judging by the photos in evidence. The screen is well illustrated in the photographs comprising the attachments to the respondents' email submissions to the Tribunal received 29 January 2026, which form part of Exhibit 2 (the respondents' response and all submissions filed by them).

[5] The original respondent also planted a bamboo screen along the fence line at the front (roadside) of her property, which was also the subject of the original application as filed, however those plants had been removed by the time this matter came on for hearing. Only the bamboo screen adjacent to the granny flat is the present subject of dispute.

[6] In addition to the high setting of the granny flat, there is a natural fall in the slope, such that the applicants' granny flat sits well above the level of the respondents' garden and pool area. As best can be assessed from the photographic evidence submitted by both parties, the veranda level of the granny flat, which overlooks the respondents' property (or do but for the bamboo screen), is approximately 3 metres above ground level at the respondents' pool area.

[7] As noted above, the veranda of the granny flat runs the entire length of the granny flat. The bamboo screen, assessed from the photographs tendered by both parties, extends approximately halfway along the veranda. That is, the applicants have apparently unobstructed views from the rear half of the veranda, but the front half (i.e. closer to the road) is prevented from any outlook (including over the respondents' garden and pool) by the presence of the bamboo screen. The bamboo screen prevents sunlight from falling on the front half of the veranda, and, when grown to a height approximately 5 metres above ground level, causes leaf litter and debris to fall onto the applicants' property including the roof and gutter.

[8] The competing claims of the parties are that:

(a) the applicants complain that approximately half of the granny flat veranda is shaded by the bamboo screen, and a view to the horizon from that part of the veranda, over the respondents' property, showing a distant view of Mount Coot-tha, is blocked;

(b) the respondents claim that, if the bamboo screen is pruned below an acceptable height, they will lose privacy and will be subject to residents of the granny flat looking down over their rear garden and pool area.

[9] Turning to the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) ("Act"):

(a) the respondents are the tree-keeper within the meaning of section 48 of the Act;

(b) the applicants are a neighbour of the respondent tree-keeper;

(c) the respondents are responsible for ensuring the tree does not cause "substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference" with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their land (Act s 52(2)(c));

(d) the applicants allege, and I accept, that the bamboo screen has caused, and is likely within the next 12 months to cause "substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference" with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their land (Act s 46(a)(ii)(C)), and thus the applicants' land is "affected by a tree". This is because of the shading of the front part of the veranda and the leaf litter occurring when the screen exceeds approximately 5.2 metres height;

(e) the parties have made reasonable attempts to reach agreement, such that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make orders to "remedy, restrain or prevent substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference" with the applicants' land (Act s 66(2)(b)(ii)).

[10] The central question for decision is the extent to which the bamboo screen ought to be pruned, and with what regularity. Such pruning should be undertaken by the respondents at their cost, given that they wish to retain the bamboo screen. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the bamboo screen should be removed entirely, given that regular pruning and maintenance of the bamboo screen will preserve reasonable amenity for both parties, i.e., the applicants will receive a reasonable throw of sunlight onto their veranda, and will enjoy a partial view. At the same time, the respondents will be able to enjoy the privacy of their garden and swimming pool.

[11] A tree assessment report was prepared by Mr David Gunter, tree assessor, dated 12 June 2023. That report is Exhibit 3 before the Tribunal. At the time that the report was prepared the bamboo screen which remains in question was described as G in the report. The report notes:

(a) the bamboo screen was planted by the then respondent in an effort to regain privacy which was lost when the applicants built the granny flat;

(b) the bamboo screen provides a "very effective privacy screen, but has also blocked the applicants' view from part of the veranda";

(c) the erection of the pole and wire restraining system is an effective solution to the potential problem of the bamboo overhanging the applicants' property;

(d) reduction of the height of the bamboo screen to permit access to the full view would significantly reduce the value of the bamboo screen as regards privacy.

(e) The report concludes that it is for the Tribunal to decide between the entitlement of the applicants to a view of distant hills, and notes that trees on adjacent properties may grow into that view in the future, and the respondents' right to privacy.

[12] The question for the Tribunal is the height to which the bamboo screen should be trimmed, on a regular basis, such trimming to be undertaken by the respondents and at their expense.

[13] The applicants' submissions filed in the Tribunal on 29 January 2026 suggest that a height of 5.2 metres would not allow for "any direct sunlight on the majority of the deck, nor would the sunlight reach the sliding doors of the veranda". The applicants submit that the bamboo be maintained at a height of 3.6 metres, to allow for sunlight to reach the sliding glass doors of the granny flat. The respondents submit that the applicants already enjoy approximately one half of the total length of the granny flat veranda unobstructed by the bamboo screen. They submit that, in the interests of privacy, the bamboo screen should be maintained at a height of 5.2 metres.

[14] During the hearing the Tribunal put to each party that an appropriate compromise would be to split the difference between the parties, i.e., that the height of the bamboo screen be regularly trimmed to a height of 4.4 metres. That would permit partial sunlight into the presently shaded part of the applicants' veranda, and some view of the distant horizon, whilst at the same time preserving the respondents' privacy. Specific regard was had to the applicants' additional evidence and submissions filed on 29 January 2026, which included several photographs described as Figure 1 to Figure 6 which illustrated the height of the bamboo as presently maintained at 5.2 metres, and where the height of that bamboo would be if maintained at 4 metres (see figure 1). My assessment is that the appropriate balance of the competing interests, is achieved by specifying that the height at which the bamboo is to be maintained is 4.4 metres.

1. The respondents Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick must trim the bamboo situated on their land adjacent to the parties' common shared boundary (identified as G1 in Mr David Gunter's Tree Assessment Report dated 12 June 2023) ("the Bamboo") in the months of February (save for the first trim in April 2026 as provided below), June and October of each year back to a height of 4.4 metres above the ground level of Teleah Anne Warwick's and Cody Benjamin James Warwick's land.
2. The first trim of the Bamboo outlined in Order 1 is to occur by the end of April 2026 and the last in October 2036.
3. If access to the applicants' Peter Wiedemann's and Kylie Aileen Wiedemann's land is required to undertake the work outlined in Order 1, Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick must engage a contractor with appropriate insurances (including public liability insurance) to undertake the work outlined in Order 1.
4. Peter Wiedemann and Kylie Aileen Wiedemann must, if required, allow Teleah Anne Warwick's and Cody Benjamin James Warwick's selected contractor access to their land to undertake the work outlined in Order 1 subject to three (3) days written notice or as agreed between the parties.
5. Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick will be responsible for all costs associated with undertaking the work outlined in Order 1.
6. If Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick fail to undertake any of the work outlined in Order 1 ("the Outstanding Work"), Peter Wiedemann and Kylie Aileen Wiedemann may engage their own contractor with appropriate insurances (including public liability insurance) to enter Teleah Anne Warwick's and Cody Benjamin James Warwick's land and carry out the Outstanding Work subject to Peter Wiedemann and Kylie Aileen Wiedemann giving 14 days written notice of that intention to Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick.
7. The costs incurred by Peter Wiedemann and Kylie Aileen Wiedemann engaging a contractor with appropriate insurances (including public liability insurance) to undertake the Outstanding Work in default of Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick is recoverable from Teleah Anne Warwick and Cody Benjamin James Warwick as a debt without further notice being required to be given.