Patrick v Szeto [2011] NSWLEC 1215

Patrick v Szeto [2011] NSWLEC 1215

The live overhanging branches were not shown to be likely to cause damage in the near future or injury to any person, and the compensation claims were not proved or related to contractor activity rather than the tree itself. However, the evidence satisfied the Court that dead wood falling from the respondent's tree had caused damage to the applicant's property and was likely to cause injury to persons, giving the Court jurisdiction to order removal and annual management of dead wood.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Claims for compensation refused; pruning and annual dead-wood removal orders made against the respondent.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'injury to Persons' 'overhanging Branches' 'dead Wood' 'compensation' 'tree Pruning Orders']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Law'] ['damage to Property' 'injury to Persons' 'overhanging Branches' 'dead Wood' 'compensation' 'tree Pruning Orders']

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

Class 2 Application Pursuant to S 7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property." "Whether the respondent's tree was likely to cause injury to any person." 'Whether compensation should be ordered for alleged damage to an umbrella, roof tile and ridge cap, guttering, and a fence.' 'Whether orders should be made requiring removal of dead wood from the tree canopy and future maintenance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The live overhanging branches were not shown to be likely to cause damage in the near future or injury to any person, and the compensation claims were not proved or related to contractor activity rather than the tree itself. However, the evidence satisfied the Court that dead wood falling from the respondent's tree had caused damage to the applicant's property and was likely to cause injury to persons, giving the Court jurisdiction to order removal and annual management of dead wood.

Court Disposition

Claims for compensation refused; pruning and annual dead-wood removal orders made against the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The claims for compensation are refused.' 'The respondent is to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist with all necessary insurances, to remove from the tree canopy all dead wood down to a basal diameter of 30mm.' 'The work in order (2) is to be completed within 120 days of the date of these orders.' 'The work...