Grant v Fletcher & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1108

Grant v Fletcher & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1108

The Court found that the tree had caused and would continue to cause damage to the applicant's property, and that alternative measures would likely destabilise the tree or were impractical. Thus, removal was the only practical remedy. Compensation was denied as the damage predated the respondents' ownership and there was no evidence of further significant damage during their ownership.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application to remove the tree is upheld; application for compensation is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'damage to Property by Roots' 'compensation for Property Damage']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'damage to Property by Roots' 'compensation for Property Damage']

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

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the tree on the respondents' property caused damage to the applicant's property or risk of injury" 'Whether removal of the tree is the only practical remedy' 'Whether compensation should be granted for damage caused by the tree']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the tree had caused and would continue to cause damage to the applicant's property, and that alternative measures would likely destabilise the tree or were impractical. Thus, removal was the only practical remedy. Compensation was denied as the damage predated the respondents' ownership and there was no evidence of further significant damage during their ownership.

Court Disposition

Application to remove the tree is upheld; application for compensation is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application to remove the tree is upheld.' 'The respondents are to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist to remove the tree to ground level and treat the stump to prevent regrowth.' 'The work is to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry.' 'The...