Pastars v Chhabra [2013] NSWLEC 1237

Pastars v Chhabra [2013] NSWLEC 1237

The trees had caused damage and posed a risk of near-future damage or injury. The respondent's lack of attention after the 2008 limb failure contributed to the later damage, making it reasonable to order payment of the applicant's $400 insurance excess. Tree 2 required removal because risk-reduction pruning would...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'compensation for Insurance Excess']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['damage to Property' 'risk of Injury' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'compensation for Insurance Excess']

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

Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 because the trees had caused damage.' "Whether the trees were likely to cause damage to the applicant's property in the near future or injury to a person." 'Whether removal or pruning should be ordered for the two trees.' 'Whether the respondent should compensate the applicant for her $400 insurance excess.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trees had caused damage and posed a risk of near-future damage or injury. The respondent's lack of attention after the 2008 limb failure contributed to the later damage, making it reasonable to order payment of the applicant's $400 insurance excess. Tree 2 required removal because risk-reduction pruning would remove more than half its crown and leave an unattractive tree with a short useful life expectancy. Tree 1 could be pruned to reduce the risk while remaining viable, with aerial inspection and reporting by a qualified arborist.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicant $400 within 14 days of the date of these orders.' 'The respondent is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with appropriate insurances to remove Tree 2.' "The respondent is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with appropriate...