NSW judge says dispute between neighbours over leaf blowers and 17 CCTV cameras ‘out of all proportion’

A dispute between neighbours involving the use of leaf blowers, 17 CCTV cameras and an easement quickly grew "out of all proportion" and has ended up in a New South Wales court.

"For most people, to live in a well-appointed home on a large block amid the semi-tropical vegetation of the Central Coast hinterland would be a formula for a tranquil and idyllic lifestyle," NSW supreme court justice Francois Kunc said on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, the judge said, that had not been the case for Dr Gregory Ming Hoi Au and his wife and their neighbours David Jonathon Berlach and Emily Margaret Berlach.

Kunc dismissed a supreme court summons brought by Au and ruled in favour of parts of a counter-claim brought by the Berlachs. Their property is at the rear of the Au property at Matcham.

It would be "completely landlocked" but for a right of way - the easement - over part of the Au property which gives the Berlach property vehicular and pedestrian access to the road.

"The origin of the present dispute is Dr Au's extraordinarily restrictive view of the rights conferred on the Berlachs by the easement," the judge said.

Au had sought declarations including that the Berlachs have no right to enter the easement to perform routine maintenance on the driveway.

He also wanted an injunction that they "must never, for any reason, breach the boundaries of the easement and must never interfere with the plants, animals or anything else on the Au property".

Further, they must not "personally, operate leaf blowers on the Au property" and must pay a professional gardener to blow leaves, trim vegetation strictly within the easement only, up to twice a week

But the judge refused to make any of the declarations or injunctions.

"The essential reason for this is because those orders do not reflect the relatively well settled rights and obligations of the Berlachs under the easement properly construed," he said.

They sought orders designed to stop what they contended was Au's interference with their rights under the easement. They included the removal of signs, fencing and other objects including the CCTV cameras.

Four posts erected by Au along the edge of the easement contain 17 CCTV cameras overlooking the easement.

"The court accepts the evidence of the Berlachs as to the personal distress and concern they experience by reason of the presence of the CCTV cameras and the accompanying sign 'Smile - you're being recorded'," the judge said.

But he ruled that Au was entitled, for security rather than monitoring or intimidating the Berlachs, to have some surveillance equipment monitoring the easement.

His final orders would allow Au, if he wished, the minimum number of cameras necessary to provide coverage along the length of the easement.

The judge noted most Australians lived in proximity to their neighbours.

"That proximity will require, from time to time, a degree of give and take, tolerance and common sense to ensure peaceful co-existence," he said.

"When those qualities are absent, disputes between neighbours can quickly grow out of all proportion. This case is an unfortunate example of that phenomenon."