Li v Richardson [2024] NSWLEC 1634

Li v Richardson [2024] NSWLEC 1634

The tree must be removed because its roots have caused damage to the applicants' outbuilding, and no reasonable alternative to removal exists that would prevent further damage. However, the applicants knew or ought to have known of pre-existing and ongoing risks when they purchased and improved the outbuilding. Therefore, there will be no compensation for building repairs, and the cost of removing the tree is to be shared equally between the parties.

Parties
First Applicant: Quan Li; Second Applicant: Shuang Yan Li; First Respondent: James Richardson; Second Respondent: Doreen Finkelstein
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Apportionment of Tree Removal Costs, Property Damage, Statutory Remedies
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Apportionment of Tree Removal Costs Property Damage Statutory Remedies

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quan Li

First Applicant

Shuang Yan Li

Second Applicant

James Richardson

First Respondent

Doreen Finkelstein

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the tree likely to cause injury?
  2. 2 Has the tree damaged the applicants' outbuilding?
  3. 3 Should the respondents pay for repairs to the applicants' outbuilding?

Ratio Decidendi

The tree must be removed because its roots have caused damage to the applicants' outbuilding, and no reasonable alternative to removal exists that would prevent further damage. However, the applicants knew or ought to have known of pre-existing and ongoing risks when they purchased and improved the outbuilding. Therefore, there will be no compensation for building repairs, and the cost of removing the tree is to be shared equally between the parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • The second respondent's name is corrected to Doreen Finkelstein.
  • The application is granted only to the extent of the following orders.