Hill v Drysdale & Harvey; Craike v Drysdale & Harvey [2010] NSWLEC 1147

Hill v Drysdale & Harvey; Craike v Drysdale & Harvey [2010] NSWLEC 1147

For each of the four trees, the Court was not satisfied that the tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property, or was likely to cause injury to any person. The evidence did not establish the required statutory tests or a proven nexus between the trees and alleged damage, and ordinary leaf, fruit or small debris fall did not warrant intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Applications Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Four Trees / Extempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Both applications dismissed in their entirety.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'neighbouring Trees' 'tree Pruning or Removal']
['trees Disputes' 'property Law'] ['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'neighbouring Trees' 'tree Pruning or 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Four Trees / Extempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether any tree subject to the applications had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether any tree subject to the applications was likely to cause injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether leaf, fruit, flower residue, small branch drop, gutter blockage, staining, root intrusion, or lopped branches justified orders for removal or pruning.']

Ratio Decidendi

For each of the four trees, the Court was not satisfied that the tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property, or was likely to cause injury to any person. The evidence did not establish the required statutory tests or a proven nexus between the trees and alleged damage, and ordinary leaf, fruit or small debris fall did not warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed in their entirety.

Orders

  • ['Both applications in their entirety are dismissed.']