Taylor v Campbell [2023] NSWLEC 1730

Taylor v Campbell [2023] NSWLEC 1730

Although the fallen small dead branch that pierced the pool cover constituted damage and enlivened jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a), the damage was minor and further significant damage was not likely in the near future. The Court accepted Mr Sullings' TRAQ-based assessment that the risk from the tree was low, found no evidence that roots were likely to damage the applicant's property in the near future, and found the risk of injury too low to warrant orders. The application was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 (pt 2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
The application is refused.
Legal Topics
['tree Pruning' 'tree Roots' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['tree Pruning' 'tree Roots' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'reasonable Effort to Reach Agreement']

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 2 Application Under S 7 (pt 2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree owner.' "Whether the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property." 'Whether the tree is likely to cause injury to any person.' "Whether orders should be made for pruning of the tree or removal of roots extending into the applicant's property."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the fallen small dead branch that pierced the pool cover constituted damage and enlivened jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a), the damage was minor and further significant damage was not likely in the near future. The Court accepted Mr Sullings' TRAQ-based assessment that the risk from the tree was low, found no evidence that roots were likely to damage the applicant's property in the near future, and found the risk of injury too low to warrant orders. The application was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

The application is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A.']