Purnell & anor v Hodge & anor; Steiner & anor v Hodge & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1362

Purnell & anor v Hodge & anor; Steiner & anor v Hodge & anor [2012] NSWLEC 1362

The Court dismissed both applications because the applicants did not establish the jurisdictional requirements for orders under Part 2: there was insufficient evidence that any nominated tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause property damage or injury. The Court also lacked jurisdiction under Part 2A because the informal, widely spaced, mixed-species and mixed-age group of trees and shrubs was not planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1)(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Applications Under S 7 Part 2 and S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment After Concurrent on Site Hearing
Outcome
Both applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'potential Injury From Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'hedge Under Part 2 A' 'jurisdictional Threshold Under S 10(2)' 'compensation for Tree Related Costs']
['trees and Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court' 'property Damage' 'statutory Tree Disputes'] ['damage to Property' 'potential Injury From Trees' 'obstruction of Sunlight to Windows' 'hedge Under Part 2 A' 'jurisdictional Threshold Under S 10(2)' 'compensation for Tree Related Costs']

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 Applications Under S 7 Part 2 and S 14 B Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment After Concurrent on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' properties, or were likely to cause injury to any person, under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the nominated trees were planted so as to form a hedge for the purposes of s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for removal, intervention, or compensation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed both applications because the applicants did not establish the jurisdictional requirements for orders under Part 2: there was insufficient evidence that any nominated tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause property damage or injury. The Court also lacked jurisdiction under Part 2A because the informal, widely spaced, mixed-species and mixed-age group of trees and shrubs was not planted so as to form a hedge within s 14A(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Matter 20800 of 2012: The application is dismissed.' 'Matter 20824 of 2012: The application is dismissed.']