Piper v Neal (No.2) [2014] NSWLEC 1038

Piper v Neal (No.2) [2014] NSWLEC 1038

Although the respondent's tree contributed in part to damage to the applicant's retaining wall, the damage was minor and there was insufficient basis in the circumstances to order removal of the tree or reconstruction of the retaining wall. There was no demonstrated present danger or immediate risk, and the level of proven damage and evidence about the wall's construction did not warrant intervention under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.

Parties
Applicant: J Piper; Respondent: M Neal; Intervenor: Botany Bay City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Damage to Retaining Wall, Neighbour Relationships
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Damage to Retaining Wall Neighbour Relationships

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Piper

Applicant

M Neal

Respondent

Botany Bay City Council

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's tree caused damage to the applicant's retaining wall
  2. 2 Whether orders should be made for removal of the tree and contribution to wall replacement
  3. 3 Jurisdiction under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's tree contributed in part to damage to the applicant's retaining wall, the damage was minor and there was insufficient basis in the circumstances to order removal of the tree or reconstruction of the retaining wall. There was no demonstrated present danger or immediate risk, and the level of proven damage and evidence about the wall's construction did not warrant intervention under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The exhibits, other than Exhibits A and B, are returned.