Stevenson & anor v Simpson & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1533

Stevenson & anor v Simpson & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1533

The evidence did not establish to the satisfaction required by s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 that the respondents' tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause actionable damage to the applicants' property or poses a foreseeable risk of injury. Debris accumulation is typical for urban environments and does not justify intervention; no exceptional circumstances or proven causative damage were shown.

Parties
First Applicant: Glenn Stevenson; Second Applicant: Enid Stevenson; First Respondent: Ian Simpson; Second Respondent: Jacinta Simpson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Extemporaneous Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Damage to Property, Jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Damage to Property Jurisdiction Under 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenn Stevenson

First Applicant

Enid Stevenson

Second Applicant

Ian Simpson

First Respondent

Jacinta Simpson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Extemporaneous Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Callistemon tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property or injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether annoyance or discomfort from leaf debris warrants orders for intervention with the tree
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to orders for costs or reimbursement without a Notice of Motion

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish to the satisfaction required by s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 that the respondents' tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause actionable damage to the applicants' property or poses a foreseeable risk of injury. Debris accumulation is typical for urban environments and does not justify intervention; no exceptional circumstances or proven causative damage were shown.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.