Woods v Sleeman [2020] NSWLEC 1513

Woods v Sleeman [2020] NSWLEC 1513

Although the bamboo had caused minor damage to the common boundary fence and the jurisdictional requirements were met, the respondents had repaired the fence and installed a root barrier, and there was nothing to demonstrate that the root barrier was inadequate or that Court orders were necessary to prevent further damage. The bamboo's height and associated leaf, debris, shading and mould issues did not constitute property damage. The application was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 (pt 2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is refused.
Legal Topics
['bamboo Damaging Boundary Fence' 'root Barrier' 'pruning and Maintenance of Trees' 'likelihood of Future Damage' 'reasonable Effort to Resolve Dispute' 'notice of Application']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['bamboo Damaging Boundary Fence' 'root Barrier' 'pruning and Maintenance of Trees' 'likelihood of Future Damage' 'reasonable Effort to Resolve Dispute' 'notice of Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under S 7 (pt 2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether bamboo on the respondents' adjoining land had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property." 'Whether the applicants had made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents before applying to the Court.' 'Whether the applicants had given the required notice of the application.' 'Whether further orders were needed for a root barrier, fence clearance, fence repair, or height control of the bamboo.' "Whether the respondents' claim for contribution to fencing costs should be entertained."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the bamboo had caused minor damage to the common boundary fence and the jurisdictional requirements were met, the respondents had repaired the fence and installed a root barrier, and there was nothing to demonstrate that the root barrier was inadequate or that Court orders were necessary to prevent further damage. The bamboo's height and associated leaf, debris, shading and mould issues did not constitute property damage. The application was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

The application is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned, except for A and B.']