Mildred v Steinhauer [2022] NSWLEC 1148

Mildred v Steinhauer [2022] NSWLEC 1148

The applicant made reasonable efforts to reach agreement, but he did not prove that the respondent's Tallowood had damaged his sewer pipes during his ownership or that sewer pipe damage was likely within the near future. The Court was satisfied, however, that hanging and dead branches created a low-moderate risk sufficient to engage s 10(2)(b), warranting limited pruning rather than removal. Because the tree was healthy, vigorous, structurally sound and provided significant amenity and environmental benefits, removal was not justified; deadwood and vine pruning would sufficiently reduce risk, with the applicant to reimburse 70% of the cheapest quotation for works over his property in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Tree Dispute Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Site Visit; Final Orders Made
Outcome
Tree removal refused; limited pruning and deadwood removal ordered.
Legal Topics
['tree Removal' 'damage to Sewer Pipes' 'risk of Injury From Falling Branches' 'deadwood Pruning' 'expert Arborist Evidence' 'costs of Tree Works']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['tree Removal' 'damage to Sewer Pipes' 'risk of Injury From Falling Branches' 'deadwood Pruning' 'expert Arborist Evidence' 'costs of Tree Works']

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

Class 1 Tree Dispute Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Site Visit; Final Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's sewer pipes." "Whether the respondent's tree is likely to cause injury to any person from falling branches or deadwood." 'Whether tree removal is an appropriate intervention or whether pruning is sufficient.' 'Who should bear the cost of any ordered tree works.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant made reasonable efforts to reach agreement, but he did not prove that the respondent's Tallowood had damaged his sewer pipes during his ownership or that sewer pipe damage was likely within the near future. The Court was satisfied, however, that hanging and dead branches created a low-moderate risk sufficient to engage s 10(2)(b), warranting limited pruning rather than removal. Because the tree was healthy, vigorous, structurally sound and provided significant amenity and environmental benefits, removal was not justified; deadwood and vine pruning would sufficiently reduce risk, with the applicant to reimburse 70% of the cheapest quotation for works over his property in...

Court Disposition

Tree removal refused; limited pruning and deadwood removal ordered.

Orders

  • ["Within 30 days of the date of the orders, the applicant and the respondent shall each secure and exchange one quotation from an AQF level 3 arborist with all appropriate insurances, for pruning the respondent's trumpet vine to a maximum height of 3 m above ground level, removing hanging branches and deadwood above...