Carey v Pattinson [2020] NSWLEC 1515
No valid evidence was provided to establish a causal link between the tree roots and the retaining wall damage, thus the statutory requirements under s 10 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 are not satisfied and the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders for intervention with the tree.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 September 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Tree Dispute – Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Decision Following Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['trees – Disputes Between Neighbours' 'damage to Retaining Wall' 'jurisdiction Under Trees Act' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute – Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Decision Following Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Has the Camphor laurel tree caused or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's retaining wall?" 'Has the applicant satisfied the statutory requirements for application under s 7 and s 10 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006?' 'Is excavation necessary to substantiate root damage claims?']
Ratio Decidendi
No valid evidence was provided to establish a causal link between the tree roots and the retaining wall damage, thus the statutory requirements under s 10 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 are not satisfied and the Court has no jurisdiction to make orders for intervention with the tree.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment