Richards v Sharp [2022] NSWLEC 1164

Richards v Sharp [2022] NSWLEC 1164

The Applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement. Although any existing gutter damage appeared minor and likely old, branches close to the dwelling might cause further minor damage when moving in wind, and that damage could easily be prevented by pruning. The Court therefore made limited orders requiring clearance pruning of the tuckeroo, but did not order pruning back to the boundary, compensation, pest control, further future pruning, or costs because those matters were unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, outside Pt 2 jurisdiction, or beyond the Commissioner's power.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Pt 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; limited pruning orders made for the tuckeroo.
Legal Topics
['pt 2 Application' 'damage or Injury Caused by Trees' 'likely Damage to Property' 'tree Pruning' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Law'] ['pt 2 Application' 'damage or Injury Caused by Trees' 'likely Damage to Property' 'tree Pruning' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement']

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 Pt 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owners under s 10(1)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' "Whether the trees have caused, are causing, or are likely in the near future to cause damage to the Applicant's property, or are likely to injure a person, under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether orders should be made for pruning, compensation for property damage, pest control, or costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement. Although any existing gutter damage appeared minor and likely old, branches close to the dwelling might cause further minor damage when moving in wind, and that damage could easily be prevented by pruning. The Court therefore made limited orders requiring clearance pruning of the tuckeroo, but did not order pruning back to the boundary, compensation, pest control, further future pruning, or costs because those matters were unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, outside Pt 2 jurisdiction, or beyond the Commissioner's power.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; limited pruning orders made for the tuckeroo.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with all appropriate insurance to prune the tuckeroo within 60 days of the date of these orders so as to provide at least 800 mm direct clearance between any part of the tuckeroo and any part of the...