Ermis v Boutros [2025] NSWLEC 5

Ermis v Boutros [2025] NSWLEC 5

No error of law by the Acting Commissioner was demonstrated in refusing orders for pruning under Parts 2 or 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; grounds raised by the Appellants related to the merits of the decision and not to questions of law.

Parties
First Appellant: Memduh Volkan Ermis; Second Appellant: Ayzin Ermis; First Respondent: Simon Boutros; Second Respondent: Cecilia Boutros
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
S 56 a Appeal / Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Appeals on Questions of Law
Environmental Law Local Government Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Appeals on Questions of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Memduh Volkan Ermis

First Appellant

Ayzin Ermis

Second Appellant

Simon Boutros

First Respondent

Cecilia Boutros

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

S 56 a Appeal / Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Acting Commissioner erred in law in refusing the application for pruning under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Part 2A
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to consider matters under ss 12, 14E, and 14F of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  3. 3 Whether the Acting Commissioner failed to properly address the likelihood of damage or injury from certain trees under Part 2

Ratio Decidendi

No error of law by the Acting Commissioner was demonstrated in refusing orders for pruning under Parts 2 or 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; grounds raised by the Appellants related to the merits of the decision and not to questions of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Court orders that appeal no 2024/354685 is dismissed.