Bolanos v Turpin [2021] NSWLEC 1810

Bolanos v Turpin [2021] NSWLEC 1810

The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 does not provide jurisdiction for claims where alleged damage or injury arises from animals attracted to or living in the trees rather than the tree itself; annoyance or maintenance due to tree debris alone does not constitute actionable damage under s 7; no sufficient evidence was provided to substantiate damage or injury as required by s 10; costs cannot be ordered by Commissioners in this context.

Parties
Applicant: Deidre Bolanos; Respondent: John Turpin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Jurisdiction Under Trees Act, Nuisance, Evidence Requirements, Costs Under Trees Act
Property Law Environmental Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Jurisdiction Under Trees Act Nuisance Evidence Requirements Costs Under Trees Act

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deidre Bolanos

Applicant

John Turpin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trees Act provides jurisdiction for claims concerning damage caused by animals attracted to trees
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated damage or risk of injury caused by the tree itself
  3. 3 Whether reimbursement of costs is available under the Trees Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 does not provide jurisdiction for claims where alleged damage or injury arises from animals attracted to or living in the trees rather than the tree itself; annoyance or maintenance due to tree debris alone does not constitute actionable damage under s 7; no sufficient evidence was provided to substantiate damage or injury as required by s 10; costs cannot be ordered by Commissioners in this context.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.