Fisher v Nassar & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 1459

Fisher v Nassar & Anor [2008] NSWLEC 1459

The application was refused because the Court was not satisfied that any part of s 10(2) was adequately met: no injury had occurred or was likely, there was no substantiated evidence directly linking the crack in the wall, driveway mounding, or sticking gates and kitchen door to the tree, and even if roots were present the impacts were very minor and other contributing factors existed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Removal of a Tree / Final Determination After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['removal of Tree' 'damage to Property' 'injury to Persons' 'tree Roots' 'section 10(2) Threshold']

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 Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Removal of a Tree / Final Determination After on Site Hearing

  1. 1 ["Whether the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons." 'Whether the Court should order removal of the tree under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court was not satisfied that any part of s 10(2) was adequately met: no injury had occurred or was likely, there was no substantiated evidence directly linking the crack in the wall, driveway mounding, or sticking gates and kitchen door to the tree, and even if roots were present the impacts were very minor and other contributing factors existed.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']