YA & AZ v BT [2024] NZDT 765 (22 November 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]
...or into their roof. It also was not adequate because it created ongoing maintenance expenses and because it extended too far into their property and close to their house. The applicants further submitted that even if maintenance was currently taken care of by BT and NT, if they sold their property, a future owner of their property might not do so. 23. NT argued the hedge is attractive, healthy and provides an adequate degree of privacy for the occupants of each property. NT provided r...