Ansted v Lotherington [2016] NSWLEC 1436

Ansted v Lotherington [2016] NSWLEC 1436

Although the tree was located on the respondent's property and was relatively close to the applicant's property, it was not legally on adjoining land because a strip of land forming part of another allotment lay between the parties' land; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Decision on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['potential Damage to Property' 'potential Injury' 'jurisdiction' 'tree Not on Adjoining Land']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['potential Damage to Property' 'potential Injury' 'jurisdiction' 'tree Not on Adjoining Land']

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 Application Under S 7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the tree was situated on adjoining land for the purposes of s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the tree was located on the respondent's property and was relatively close to the applicant's property, it was not legally on adjoining land because a strip of land forming part of another allotment lay between the parties' land; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the matter.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']