Reeves & anor v Marks & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1059

Reeves & anor v Marks & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1059

The Court was not satisfied that removal of the trees, repair orders, or compensation were justified because the gum tree was healthy with no major structural defects, much of the decking condition was attributable to age and weathering, lattice damage was caused by contractors rather than the tree, pool issues did not justify tree removal or compensation, and palm root damage was not established. However, debris and possible future branch failures from the gum tree satisfied the jurisdictional threshold, and the risk could be managed by regular pruning rather than removal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Tree Dispute Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
The application was upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'compensation' 'tree Pruning' 'tree Removal']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'compensation' 'tree Pruning' '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 Tree Dispute Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' Lemon-scented Gum and Chinese Windmill Palm caused damage to the applicants' property or were likely in the near future to cause damage or injury." 'Whether the Court should order removal of the trees, compensation, repair works, or pruning.' 'Whether alleged palm root damage to sewer pipes was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that removal of the trees, repair orders, or compensation were justified because the gum tree was healthy with no major structural defects, much of the decking condition was attributable to age and weathering, lattice damage was caused by contractors rather than the tree, pool issues did not justify tree removal or compensation, and palm root damage was not established. However, debris and possible future branch failures from the gum tree satisfied the jurisdictional threshold, and the risk could be managed by regular pruning rather than removal.

Court Disposition

The application was upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'By 9 April the respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF Level 3), with all appropriate insurances and equipment, to carry out specified pruning works on the Lemon-scented Gum.' "The initial pruning works must include removal of all...