Frith & anor v Devile & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1198

Frith & anor v Devile & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1198

The Ironbark was not wholly or principally on the respondents' land because the majority of the tree at ground level was not on their property, so the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders concerning it or compensation for alleged damage caused by it. Although the Stringybarks were on the respondents' property, the applicants had not shown that they had caused, were causing, or could in the near future cause damage to property or injury, so s 10(2) was not met and the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['damage to Property From Trees' 'injury Risk From Trees' 'compensation' 'tree Situated Wholly or Principally on Land' 'jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage' 'neighbour Law'] ['damage to Property From Trees' 'injury Risk From Trees' 'compensation' 'tree Situated Wholly or Principally on Land' 'jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Ironbark was situated wholly or principally on the respondents' land so that the Court had jurisdiction under the Act." "Whether the three Stringybarks had caused, were causing, or could in the near future cause damage to the applicants' property or injury to any person." 'Whether orders for removal of trees and compensation for alleged roof sarking damage should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Ironbark was not wholly or principally on the respondents' land because the majority of the tree at ground level was not on their property, so the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders concerning it or compensation for alleged damage caused by it. Although the Stringybarks were on the respondents' property, the applicants had not shown that they had caused, were causing, or could in the near future cause damage to property or injury, so s 10(2) was not met and the Court's jurisdiction to make orders was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']