Manasseh v Segal & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1014

Manasseh v Segal & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1014

The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's complaints about the tree's size, debris, vermin, uprooting, sunlight obstruction, roots, or the brick wall justified pruning or other orders. However, the narrow fork at approximately two metres may pose a risk of stem failure causing injury, enlivening jurisdiction under the Trees Act. Because installation of a bracing cable was a relatively cheap and harmless preventative measure and extensive pruning was unnecessary, the appropriate order was for the respondents to engage and pay for an arborist to install a bracing cable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Application for Orders Concerning Pruning of a Tree
Outcome
The application is upheld.
Legal Topics
['damage or Injury From Trees' 'tree Debris' 'branch Failure' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'tree Roots' 'bracing Cable Orders']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['damage or Injury From Trees' 'tree Debris' 'branch Failure' 'obstruction of Sunlight' 'tree Roots' 'bracing Cable Orders']

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 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Application for Orders Concerning Pruning of a Tree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 to make orders in relation to the Queensland Brushbox.' "Whether the tree had caused, was causing, or was likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property, or was likely to cause injury to any person." 'Whether debris, alleged vermin attraction, alleged obstruction of sunlight, possible uprooting, alleged root damage, or alleged damage to a brick wall justified orders.' 'Whether the risk associated with the narrow fork at approximately two metres justified orders for works to the tree.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's complaints about the tree's size, debris, vermin, uprooting, sunlight obstruction, roots, or the brick wall justified pruning or other orders. However, the narrow fork at approximately two metres may pose a risk of stem failure causing injury, enlivening jurisdiction under the Trees Act. Because installation of a bracing cable was a relatively cheap and harmless preventative measure and extensive pruning was unnecessary, the appropriate order was for the respondents to engage and pay for an arborist to install a bracing cable.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld.

Orders

  • ['The application is upheld.' 'Within 90 days of the date of these orders the respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF Level 3) to install a bracing cable between the two stems that fork at approximately two metres. The cable should be installed at approximately two thirds the...