Crannis v Flood [2007] NSWLEC 503

Crannis v Flood [2007] NSWLEC 503

There is no basis to be satisfied that it is likely, in the near future, that the tree will cause damage to the applicant's property as required by s 10(2)(a) of the Act. None of the tests pursuant to s 10(2) of the Act are met, so the application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Frederick Crannis; Respondent: Terry Flood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Neighbour Dispute Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Management, Neighbour Disputes
Trees (neighbours) Tree Management Neighbour Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Crannis

Applicant

Terry Flood

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Neighbour Dispute Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Himalayan Cedar tree on the respondent's property is likely, in the near future, to cause damage to the applicant's property under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

There is no basis to be satisfied that it is likely, in the near future, that the tree will cause damage to the applicant's property as required by s 10(2)(a) of the Act. None of the tests pursuant to s 10(2) of the Act are met, so the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.