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 come to an end after more than a decade of conflict. 

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

The dispute in millionaire’s row – with both homes estimated to be worth close to $5m – kicked off over a hedge, retaining wall and fence installed by the Hawkins family.

Mr Ham claimed they blocked views of the water from the first floor of his house. 

Mr Ham complained to Mosman Council about the fence before an order was made for it to be reduced in size ‘to maintain the water view from the adjoining property’.

He also complained that trees and shrubs in his neighbour’s garden were blocking his view, before a formal agreement was also made in 2010 for the vegetation in the Hawkins’ yard to stay below the top of the boundary fence.

Pictured are the tcontroversial rees and shrubs on the boundary fence that separate the two homes

But things turned sour again in 2013 when Mr Ham claimed his neighbours planted three trees, a fig, grevillia and olive tree, that eventually blocked views and sunlight from his property.

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

In February, 2023, Mr Hawkins was granted permission from the council to prune some of his fig tree’s canopy, as long as the height was not reduced.

But in November of that year, Mr Hawkins received a letter from the council informing him there’d been a complaint made about the height of the fig tree.

‘Should you wish to make an application to prune or remove the tree in question, Council would consider this favourably,’ the letter from the Mosman Council read.

‘It is understood this action would resolve the issue and would seek to restore Council’s intention with view sharing when it considered your development application some time ago.’

It is believed no attempt was made to prune or remove the fig tree, which resulted in Mr Ham taking his neighbours to the Land and Environment Court, demanding his views and sunlight blocked from the fig tree and two other trees be restored.

‘Mr Ham contended the respondents had planted the trees in front of his windows to intentionally obstruct his previously available water views,’ Acting Commissioner of the court, John Douglas, said in his decision.

Mr Ham had argued that despite there being water views from the second level of his property, he and his family preferred to be downstairs

Some of the stunning views available from Mosman, on Sydney’s lower north shore

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

‘High-quality water and landscape views were also available from north facing bedroom windows, but again, Mr Ham minimised their significance,’ Mr Douglas said. 

Mr Douglas denied Mr Ham’s application, saying he wasn’t satisfied that the Hawkins’ ‘trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge as required by the Trees Act’.

He added the fig tree had been at the property before the Hawkins moved in, while the other trees had been planted in separate areas along the boundary.

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

‘I am not satisfied (the trees) caused a severe obstruction of the applicant’s views from his dwelling,’ he said.

Mr Ham’s application was refused.