Gennusa & anor v Dangerfield & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1194

Gennusa & anor v Dangerfield & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1194

The applicants failed to establish on the evidence that the trees caused the claimed structural damages (tiles, render, guttering, antenna, fence displacement) or that the claim for the antenna was within time. The potential for injury from deadwood falling from the trees was established, satisfying s 10(2)(b). Removal of the trees or compensation was not justified, but periodic pruning orders to remove dead wood were appropriate to manage the demonstrated risk of injury.

Parties
First Applicant: Mr Phillip Gennusa; Second Applicant: Mrs Sarina Gennusa; First Respondent: Mrs Toni Dangerfield; Second Respondent: Mrs Daune Aartsen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Judgment/final Orders
Outcome
Application upheld in part
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Damage to Property, Potential Injury, Compensation Claims, Evidence of Causation
Environmental Law Property Law Tort Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Damage to Property Potential Injury Compensation Claims Evidence of Causation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Phillip Gennusa

First Applicant

Mrs Sarina Gennusa

Second Applicant

Mrs Toni Dangerfield

First Respondent

Mrs Daune Aartsen

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Judgment/final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents’ trees caused damage to the applicants’ property within the meaning of s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the trees are likely to cause injury within the meaning of s 10(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the claim for compensation is within the limitation period and supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish on the evidence that the trees caused the claimed structural damages (tiles, render, guttering, antenna, fence displacement) or that the claim for the antenna was within time. The potential for injury from deadwood falling from the trees was established, satisfying s 10(2)(b). Removal of the trees or compensation was not justified, but periodic pruning orders to remove dead wood were appropriate to manage the demonstrated risk of injury.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part

Orders

  • The application is upheld in part.
  • The application to remove the trees is dismissed.