Foley v Thompson [2024] NSWLEC 1129
On the evidence, the Court was not satisfied that the respondents' trees caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property; thus, the necessary jurisdictional threshold under s 10 of the Trees Act was not met and the application must be refused.
- Parties
- Applicant: Deborah Foley; First Respondent: Neville Thompson; Second Respondent: Christine Thompson
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 Application / Extemporaneous Judgment After Final Hearing
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Tree Disputes, Nuisance, Jurisdictional Limits, Compensation for Property Damage
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deborah Foley
Applicant
Neville Thompson
First Respondent
Christine Thompson
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 Application / Extemporaneous Judgment After Final Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Leyland cypress trees planted by respondents have caused or are likely to cause damage to applicant’s property
- 2 Whether requirements of s 10, Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 are satisfied to enable the Court to make orders
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence, the Court was not satisfied that the respondents' trees caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property; thus, the necessary jurisdictional threshold under s 10 of the Trees Act was not met and the application must be refused.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- The application is refused.
- The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A.
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