Gosford City Council v Forrester [2010] NSWLEC 49
The defendant established on the balance of probabilities that each tree had become dangerous at the time it was cut down, satisfying the defence under clause 35(5) of the Gosford Interim Development Order No 122; therefore, the charge of breaching the tree preservation order was not made out.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Prosecution / Judgment
- Outcome
- not guilty
- Legal Topics
- ['tree Preservation Orders' 'statutory Interpretation' 'defence of Dangerous Trees']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the defendant breached the tree preservation order by cutting down trees without consent.' 'Whether the defence that the trees had become dangerous was established under clause 35(5) of the Gosford Interim Development Order No 122.']
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant established on the balance of probabilities that each tree had become dangerous at the time it was cut down, satisfying the defence under clause 35(5) of the Gosford Interim Development Order No 122; therefore, the charge of breaching the tree preservation order was not made out.
Court Disposition
not guilty
Orders
- ['Charge dismissed']
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