Cheong v Ren [2009] NSWLEC 1381

Cheong v Ren [2009] NSWLEC 1381

Tree 1 had a major wound from previous storm damage that weakened the remaining branch section and created a risk of failure and injury, satisfying s10(2). Tree 2 had not caused, was not causing, and was unlikely in the near future to cause damage or injury, so no order could be made for it. Trees 3 and 4 had...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['removal of Overhanging Branches' 'risk of Damage to Property' 'risk of Injury to Persons' 'tree Pruning Orders']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment' 'property'] ['removal of Overhanging Branches' 'risk of Damage to Property' 'risk of Injury to Persons' 'tree Pruning Orders']

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 Pursuant to S7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether each of the four trees had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property or be a risk of injury to persons under s10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether orders should be made for pruning or removal of branches from the respondent's trees overhanging the applicants' property."]

Ratio Decidendi

Tree 1 had a major wound from previous storm damage that weakened the remaining branch section and created a risk of failure and injury, satisfying s10(2). Tree 2 had not caused, was not causing, and was unlikely in the near future to cause damage or injury, so no order could be made for it. Trees 3 and 4 had failing limbs that could in the near future cause property damage, satisfying s10(2). Accordingly, the application was upheld only in part and pruning/removal orders were made for trees 1, 3 and 4, with no order for tree 2.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld in part.' 'The application to prune overhanging branches from tree 2 is refused.' 'The respondent is to engage an AQF level 3 arborist with the appropriate insurances to carry out the following works: removal of the damaged section of tree 1 to the point indicated on the photograph...