Strata Plan 4834 v Zhang; Strata Plan 4834 v Huynh [2012] NSWLEC 1199

Strata Plan 4834 v Zhang; Strata Plan 4834 v Huynh [2012] NSWLEC 1199

The Court was satisfied that both trees had contributed to damage to the applicant's garage walls and that their removal was required to prevent future damage. The application for compensation was dismissed after considering the respondents' limited periods of ownership and other matters from the earlier judgment. Because the risk of future damage existed when the respondents bought their properties with the trees in their current condition, it was not appropriate to require the applicant to contribute to the cost of removing the respondents' trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Trees Disputes Between Neighbours / Principal Judgment; Resumed Hearing After Interim Judgment
Outcome
The application is upheld in part; tree removal ordered; compensation dismissed.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'tree Removal' 'compensation' 'access for Tree Works' 'cost of Tree Removal']
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'property Law'] ['damage to Property' 'tree Removal' 'compensation' 'access for Tree Works' 'cost of Tree Removal']

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 Trees Disputes Between Neighbours / Principal Judgment; Resumed Hearing After Interim Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Norfolk Island Hibiscus and Camphor Laurel contributed to damage to the applicant's garage walls." 'Whether removal of the trees should be ordered to prevent future damage.' "Whether compensation should be ordered for damage to the applicant's property." 'Whether additional property owners should be heard or given access arrangements before orders affecting the Camphor Laurel were made.' 'Whether the respondents should bear the cost of tree removal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that both trees had contributed to damage to the applicant's garage walls and that their removal was required to prevent future damage. The application for compensation was dismissed after considering the respondents' limited periods of ownership and other matters from the earlier judgment. Because the risk of future damage existed when the respondents bought their properties with the trees in their current condition, it was not appropriate to require the applicant to contribute to the cost of removing the respondents' trees.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld in part; tree removal ordered; compensation dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'Within 90 days of the date of these orders Mr Zhang is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), having all appropriate insurance, to remove the Norfolk Island Hibiscus to no more than 300 mm above ground level. The work is to be carried out in accordance...