Weeks & anor v Mack & ors [2013] NSWLEC 1041

Weeks & anor v Mack & ors [2013] NSWLEC 1041

The Court found that the Ficus vegetation, even if a single tree as contended, was principally located on the applicants’ land, and thus outside the Court’s jurisdiction under the Act. In relation to the Silky Oak, no damage to property or person had occurred or was likely to occur, so jurisdiction was not enlivened. The ivy had caused damage and fell within the Court’s jurisdiction, but the respondents’ undertaking to remove it rendered any further orders unnecessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Jurisdictional Determination and Final Disposition
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['trees on Boundary' 'damage to Property' 'jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'neighbour Disputes']
['environmental Law' 'property Law'] ['trees on Boundary' 'damage to Property' 'jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'neighbour Disputes']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Jurisdictional Determination and Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court has jurisdiction under s 4(3) and s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 in relation to the fig tree(s), Silky Oak stump, and ivy;' 'Whether the vegetation in question constitutes a single tree or multiple trees;' 'Whether damage was caused or likely to be caused to applicants’ property by the vegetation;' 'Where the relevant tree is principally situated for the purposes of jurisdiction under the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Ficus vegetation, even if a single tree as contended, was principally located on the applicants’ land, and thus outside the Court’s jurisdiction under the Act. In relation to the Silky Oak, no damage to property or person had occurred or was likely to occur, so jurisdiction was not enlivened. The ivy had caused damage and fell within the Court’s jurisdiction, but the respondents’ undertaking to remove it rendered any further orders unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed in full;' 'Respondents undertook to sever, poison and remove all remnant ivy from the Silky Oak stump within 28 days;' 'Exhibits, except exhibit A, returned.']