Giroud & Anor v Sharif & Anor [2014] NSWLEC 1119

Giroud & Anor v Sharif & Anor [2014] NSWLEC 1119

Because there was no survey demonstrating where the dominant portion of the tree was located and no basis to conclude that the fence followed the properly surveyed boundary, the Court could not be satisfied that the tree was principally located on the respondents' property and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Tree Dispute Application / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['tree on Boundary' 'jurisdiction' 'location of Tree' 'survey Evidence']
['tree Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['tree on Boundary' 'jurisdiction' 'location of Tree' 'survey Evidence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Tree Dispute Application / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application where there was no survey or other basis to determine that the tree was principally located on the respondents' property."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no survey demonstrating where the dominant portion of the tree was located and no basis to conclude that the fence followed the properly surveyed boundary, the Court could not be satisfied that the tree was principally located on the respondents' property and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed']