Sidoti v Sleeman [2017] NSWLEC 1741

Sidoti v Sleeman [2017] NSWLEC 1741

Because the respondents did not dispute that a fallen limb caused damage to the applicants' property, the Court was satisfied under s 10(2) that its jurisdiction was enlivened. Whole tree failure was unlikely and removal was disproportionate, but large deadwood and overextended northern limbs presented a foreseeable risk of damage that could be reduced by routine pruning, so pruning and access orders were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment Following Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Orders made for the respondents to arrange and pay for specified pruning of the tree; tree removal not ordered.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'orders for Pruning' 'tree Removal']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property'] ['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'orders for Pruning' 'tree Removal']

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 Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment Following Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's jurisdiction was enlivened under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 by damage caused by the tree." 'Whether orders should be made to remove the tree or otherwise manage any risk of further damage or injury.' 'What pruning or access orders were appropriate to prevent further damage.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents did not dispute that a fallen limb caused damage to the applicants' property, the Court was satisfied under s 10(2) that its jurisdiction was enlivened. Whole tree failure was unlikely and removal was disproportionate, but large deadwood and overextended northern limbs presented a foreseeable risk of damage that could be reduced by routine pruning, so pruning and access orders were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Orders made for the respondents to arrange and pay for specified pruning of the tree; tree removal not ordered.

Orders

  • ["Within 60 days of the date of these orders the respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF level 3 in Arboriculture), with all appropriate insurances, to prune the tree to remove all deadwood greater than 50 mm diameter and weight-reduce the long limbs extending...