Samuel v Euston [2012] NSWLEC 1094

Samuel v Euston [2012] NSWLEC 1094

The Court was not satisfied that Tree 1 or Tree 2 was likely to fail or cause injury or above-ground damage in the relevant timeframe, so removal and pruning orders were refused. The Court was satisfied that roots from one or more of the respondents' trees had blocked the applicants' sewer, but because the clay pipes were susceptible to root incursion, the applicants knew of the problem and the earlier offer to replace the pipes, and the respondents' offer was reasonable, the appropriate orders were partial reimbursement of plumbing costs and replacement of the relevant clay sewer pipes by the respondents, with surface reinstatement to be the applicants' responsibility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; removal refused, pruning refused, part payment of compensation ordered, replacement of a section of sewer pipe ordered.
Legal Topics
['damage to Sewer Pipes by Tree Roots' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'compensation for Plumbing Costs' 'replacement of Sewer Pipes']
['trees and Neighbours' 'property Damage'] ['damage to Sewer Pipes by Tree Roots' 'risk of Injury From Trees' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'compensation for Plumbing Costs' 'replacement of Sewer Pipes']

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 S7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tree 1 should be removed because roots caused sewer blockages and because branches posed a risk of damage or injury.' 'Whether Tree 2 should be pruned because overhanging branches posed a risk of damage or injury.' "Whether roots from the respondents' trees caused damage to the applicants' sewer sufficient to enliven jurisdiction under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'What orders should be made having regard to the matters in s 12 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that Tree 1 or Tree 2 was likely to fail or cause injury or above-ground damage in the relevant timeframe, so removal and pruning orders were refused. The Court was satisfied that roots from one or more of the respondents' trees had blocked the applicants' sewer, but because the clay pipes were susceptible to root incursion, the applicants knew of the problem and the earlier offer to replace the pipes, and the respondents' offer was reasonable, the appropriate orders were partial reimbursement of plumbing costs and replacement of the relevant clay sewer pipes by the respondents, with surface reinstatement to be the applicants' responsibility.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; removal refused, pruning refused, part payment of compensation ordered, replacement of a section of sewer pipe ordered.

Orders

  • ['The application to remove Tree 1 is dismissed.' 'The application to prune Tree 2 is dismissed.' 'The respondents are to reimburse the applicants a sum of $605.80 within 30 days of the date of these orders.' "Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage and pay for a plumber to replace...