Awad v Hardie [2010] NSWLEC 1213

Awad v Hardie [2010] NSWLEC 1213

Because Mr Mansell did not carry out a survey of the proportions of the tree trunk at the point where it enters the ground on each property, and because his report did not acknowledge the expert obligations required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, his second survey report was rejected and the Court was unable...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Camphor Laurel on a Boundary / Extempore Judgment After Site Inspection and Evidence Concerning Survey Compliance
Outcome
Second survey report rejected as evidence; Court unable to be satisfied that the tree was located principally on Ms Hardie's property. A further adjournment was later granted to Ms Awad without opposition for a proper survey.
Legal Topics
['boundary Tree Principally Situated on Property' 'survey Evidence' 'expert Evidence Compliance' 'trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 S 4(3)']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['boundary Tree Principally Situated on Property' 'survey Evidence' 'expert Evidence Compliance' 'trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 S 4(3)']

Source-derived case record

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 the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning a Camphor Laurel on a Boundary / Extempore Judgment After Site Inspection and Evidence Concerning Survey Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the further survey determined the proportion of the tree trunk located on each property at the point where the trunk enters the ground.' "Whether the expert survey report complied with the Court's directions and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules concerning expert witness reports." "Whether the Court could be satisfied that the tree was principally located on Ms Hardie's property for the purposes of s 4(3) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Mansell did not carry out a survey of the proportions of the tree trunk at the point where it enters the ground on each property, and because his report did not acknowledge the expert obligations required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, his second survey report was rejected and the Court was unable to be satisfied that the tree was located principally on Ms Hardie's property.

Court Disposition

Second survey report rejected as evidence; Court unable to be satisfied that the tree was located principally on Ms Hardie's property. A further adjournment was later granted to Ms Awad without opposition for a proper survey.

Orders

  • []