KEY POINTS:
A judge has ordered a family to cut down trees blocking a neighbour's panoramic views from a Tuscan-style house tower.
The order comes after a 12-year battle between Wairarapa neighbours Colin Garstang and Steven Courteney.
The Garstang family own a home with a tower overlooking the Courteneys' property.
The Courteney family felt the views from the Garstang property invaded their privacy, and planted a stand of eucalyptus trees, which have grown tall enough to block their neighbours' view.
The Garstangs sought a court order which would force the Courteneys to fell the trees.
At the start of a two-day hearing in Masterton District Court this month, Judge Michael Radford asked if the families could not sort out their differences in mediation.
Steven Courteney said he wanted the differences between the two families resolved by the judge.
The judge said the case was always going to depend on whose version of events he believed, and he found Mr Garstang to be more credible.
"Mr Garstang was a very clear witness who was very ready to make concessions under cross-examination where such concessions were appropriate," he said.
"It appeared to me he did not try to prevaricate or avoid answering questions.
"[Mr Courteney] would not, it seemed to me, answer questions directly and on many occasions was evasive.
"Overall my impression of him is that he was not an open and completely truthful witness, and was more anxious to promote his own view of the matter than be completely candid."
Judge Radford's decision could have ramifications for other property owners, as he found that the view from the Garstangs' property was a significant and important feature of the house, and its loss could constitute a hardship.
Mr Courteney's lawyer argued that a view was not property, and the Garstangs had no rights to a view.
Judge Radford did not agree.
"It follows that because of the lack of the view which was planned and specifically built for, there is a reduction in enjoyment of it for residential purposes."
The Courteneys had said their eucalyptus trees were essential to protect their privacy, but Judge Radford said he did not consider their arguments well-founded.
In particular, their claim that people in the Garstang home could look into their daughter's bedroom was tenuous at best.
The Courteney home was significantly screened from the Garstang home by trees and shrubs, he said.
"There is a distance between the two properties [of] 156m or thereabouts, and in my view the issue of privacy is diminished by the fact of that distance."
Judge Radford said the dispute was long-running and bitterly contested.
Mr Courteney had a "fixed, almost obsessive" view about Mr Garstang's house and was not prepared to entertain any compromises.
The judge ordered several of the trees to be felled, and said the Garstangs would be eligible for costs.
