Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192

Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192

The appeal failed because the Commissioner did not err in construing s 14A(1)(a): 'planted' requires human agency and excludes a self-sown tree, and the Turpentine was not planted so as to form a hedge with the palms. The appellants also did not establish any error of law in the Commissioner's factual inference that the Turpentine was more likely self-sown, because there was evidence capable of supporting that inference. The alleged jurisdictional error was consequential and failed with the other grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 S 56 A(1) Appeal Against Commissioner's Decision Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment on Appeal on Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal unsuccessful; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'obstruction of Views by Trees' "meaning of 'planted'" "meaning of 'so as to Form a Hedge'" 'appeal on Questions of Law Under S 56 A']
['environmental Law' 'land and Environment Court Appeals' 'tree Disputes' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'obstruction of Views by Trees' "meaning of 'planted'" "meaning of 'so as to Form a Hedge'" 'appeal on Questions of Law Under S 56 A']

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 S 56 A(1) Appeal Against Commissioner's Decision Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment on Appeal on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner erred in interpreting s 14A(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 as requiring a tree to be planted by human agency and excluding a self-sown tree.' 'Whether the Commissioner erred in interpreting or applying the requirement that trees be planted so as to form a hedge.' "Whether the Commissioner's finding that the Turpentine was more likely self-sown than planted raised an error of law." 'Whether the Commissioner erred in finding no jurisdiction to make orders concerning the Turpentine.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Commissioner did not err in construing s 14A(1)(a): 'planted' requires human agency and excludes a self-sown tree, and the Turpentine was not planted so as to form a hedge with the palms. The appellants also did not establish any error of law in the Commissioner's factual inference that the Turpentine was more likely self-sown, because there was evidence capable of supporting that inference. The alleged jurisdictional error was consequential and failed with the other grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal unsuccessful; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']