Tunsted v Stead [2009] NSWLEC 1069

Tunsted v Stead [2009] NSWLEC 1069

There is no evidence that the trees have caused, are causing, or will in the near future cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons sufficient to warrant removal or intervention under s 10(2) of the Act.

Parties
Applicant: Garry Tunsted; Respondent: Kate Stead
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Damage to Property, Injury to Persons, Heritage Listing
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Damage to Property Injury to Persons Heritage Listing

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garry Tunsted

Applicant

Kate Stead

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees have caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons within the near future as per s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence that the trees have caused, are causing, or will in the near future cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons sufficient to warrant removal or intervention under s 10(2) of the Act.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to remove the trees is dismissed.