Two neighbours waged war over a hedge for more than a DECADE in one of Australia’s ritziest suburbs. Now, after a wild accusation about water views, a judge has made his decision…

A war over a hedge between neighbours in one of Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs has finally ended after more than a decade.

Tensions in Mosman between Kiam Ham and his neighbours Grahame and Liz Hawkins first flared in 2010, the year after Mr Ham moved in next door.

The dispute in the millionaire’s estate – with both homes estimated to be worth nearly $5 million – began over a hedge, retaining wall and fence installed by the Hawkins family.

Mr. Ham claimed they were blocking the view of the water from the first floor of his home.

Mr Ham complained to Mosman City Council about the fence, before an order was given to reduce the size of the fence ‘to preserve the water view from the adjacent property’.

He also complained that trees and shrubs in his neighbor’s yard blocked his view, before a formal agreement was reached in 2010 that the vegetation in the Hawkins’ yard would remain below the top of the property line fence.

The photo shows the controversial reeds and bushes on the border fence that separates the two houses

But in 2013, things went wrong when Mr Ham claimed his neighbours had planted three trees, a fig tree, a grevillia and an olive tree, which ended up blocking the view and sunlight on his property.

In 2019, Mr. Ham demolished the house and built a new two-story house.

In February 2023, Mr Hawkins was granted permission by the council to prune part of the crown of his fig tree, provided the tree was not reduced in height.

But in November of that year, Mr Hawkins received a letter from the council stating that a complaint had been made about the height of the fig tree.

“Should you wish to submit an application to prune or remove the tree in question, the council will consider this favourably,” the letter from Mosman City Council states.

‘It is clear that this measure resolves the issue and reinstates the Council’s intention to share your views when it considered your development application some time ago.’

Presumably no attempt was made to prune or remove the fig tree. Therefore, Mr. Ham took his neighbors to the Land and Environmental Court. He demanded that the view and sunlight that was blocked by the fig tree and two other trees be restored.

“Mr. Ham alleged that the respondents planted the trees in front of his windows to intentionally obstruct his previously available view of the water,” Acting Court Commissioner John Douglas said in his decision.

Mr Ham had argued that despite having a view of the water from the second floor of his home, he and his family preferred to live downstairs.

Some of the stunning views you can enjoy from Mosman, on Sydney’s Lower North Shore

From the top floor of Mr Ham’s property there are “excellent views of the water”, but he claimed that he and his family preferred to use the living room downstairs and that the room upstairs was “inhospitable”.

‘The north-facing bedroom windows also offered wonderful views of the water and countryside, but here too Mr Ham downplayed their importance,’ said Mr Douglas.

Mr Douglas dismissed Mr Ham’s application, saying he was not satisfied that the Hawkins’ trees had been ‘planted for the purpose of forming a hedge as required by the Trees Act’.

He added that the fig tree was on the property before the Hawkins moved in, while the other trees were planted in separate spots along the border.

The grevillia was less than 2 metres tall and the olive tree, which was about 5 metres tall, had been given to the Hawkins family as a gift and planted in front of their living room so they could see it.

“I am not satisfied that (the trees) seriously obstruct the applicant’s view from his home,” he said.

Mr Ham’s application was rejected.