Immarrata v Mourikis [2007] NSWLEC 601
No sufficient evidence was provided that the trees have caused or are likely to cause property damage or present an unusual or likely risk of bee-related injury to the applicant, and the Act does not extend to indirect bee injury concerns in the circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Carmina Immarrata; Respondent: Evelyn Mourikis
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Trees and Neighbours, Removal of Trees
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Carmina Immarrata
Applicant
Evelyn Mourikis
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a row of Lilly Pilly trees on the respondent's property should be removed under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 due to alleged risk of property damage and attraction of bees posing health risks to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
No sufficient evidence was provided that the trees have caused or are likely to cause property damage or present an unusual or likely risk of bee-related injury to the applicant, and the Act does not extend to indirect bee injury concerns in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
application 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