Beard v Cash [2019] NSWLEC 1543
The tree on the respondents' property has caused and is likely to cause further damage to the applicants' property, primarily from falling deadwood and overextended branches. Removal would be disproportionate to risk and diminish environmental values; orders for pruning are warranted to minimize future risk, with the respondents bearing the cost.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 November 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Tree Dispute / Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Orders for pruning granted, tree not removed.
- Legal Topics
- ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)' 'damage From Trees' 'pruning Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute / Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the tree has caused or is likely to cause damage or injury to the applicant's property" 'Appropriateness of removal versus pruning orders' 'Jurisdiction to make orders under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)']
Ratio Decidendi
The tree on the respondents' property has caused and is likely to cause further damage to the applicants' property, primarily from falling deadwood and overextended branches. Removal would be disproportionate to risk and diminish environmental values; orders for pruning are warranted to minimize future risk, with the respondents bearing the cost.
Court Disposition
Orders for pruning granted, tree not removed.
Orders
- ["Within 60 days, respondents to engage and pay for a qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with insurance to prune the Flooded Gum near the northern corner of their dwelling as follows: remove deadwood greater than 20mm diameter; reduce overextended branches in the crown above applicants' property by pruning...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment