Savva v Curtis [2018] NSWLEC 1599

Savva v Curtis [2018] NSWLEC 1599

The application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the respondent's Jacaranda caused the retaining wall damage or posed a significant threat of damage or injury. The wall appeared inadequate for its retaining purpose, any root-related contribution was more likely from a tree formerly within the applicant's own garden bed, and ordinary debris from the tree did not justify orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Onsite Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['damage to Retaining Wall' 'whether Tree Caused Damage' 'tree Removal' 'leaf and Flower Debris' 'risk of Injury or Damage']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['damage to Retaining Wall' 'whether Tree Caused Damage' 'tree Removal' 'leaf and Flower Debris' 'risk of Injury or Damage']

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 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Onsite Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's Jacaranda caused damage to the applicant's retaining wall." 'Whether debris from the Jacaranda justified orders for removal of or intervention with the tree.' 'Whether the Jacaranda posed a significant threat of damage or injury.' 'Whether orders could be made under s 10(2) of the Trees Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the respondent's Jacaranda caused the retaining wall damage or posed a significant threat of damage or injury. The wall appeared inadequate for its retaining purpose, any root-related contribution was more likely from a tree formerly within the applicant's own garden bed, and ordinary debris from the tree did not justify orders.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']