Ratay v Allen [2010] NSWLEC 1086

No past or present foundation or other damage from the roots was shown, there was no basis to conclude that damage was likely within the near future of about 12 months, and the alleged seed pod risk was caused by cockatoos rather than the tree. Accordingly none of the s 10(2) tests was satisfied and the Court lacked jurisdiction to make orders.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 April 2010
Procedural Posture: Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.
Legal Topics: ['neighbouring Trees' 'tree Roots' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2)']

['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'tree Roots' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2)']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether roots from two Liquidambar trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether seed pods discharged into the applicants' property by cockatoos interacting with a tree could found a risk of injury basis for jurisdiction under the Act." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders on the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.

Orders

['The application is dismissed.']