Trigas v Jennings [2022] NSWLEC 1333

Trigas v Jennings [2022] NSWLEC 1333

The Court found the likelihood of failure of some branches of T1 (Eucalyptus longifolia) to be at least possible, even probable, within the next 12 months and that T2 (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) had defects so severe its stem might fail and cause damage. Pruning of T1 would reasonably mitigate risk to property, while T2 required removal. The Applicants' lack of cooperation resulted in additional costs, 20% of which are to be borne by them for the pruning works. Compensation for loss of T2 is to be effected by planting three native trees.

Parties
First Applicant: Grigorios Trigas; Second Applicant: Anastasia Trigas; Respondent: Jean Jennings
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (class 2) / Principal Judgment / Final Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part: orders made for removal of T2, pruning of T1, costs apportionment, and replanting.
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Risk of Property Damage, Risk of Injury, Court Ordered Removal and Pruning of Trees
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Risk of Property Damage Risk of Injury Court Ordered Removal and Pruning of Trees

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

Parties

Grigorios Trigas

First Applicant

Anastasia Trigas

Second Applicant

Jean Jennings

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute (class 2) / Principal Judgment / Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees on the Respondent's land are likely to cause damage to the Applicants' property within the near future or cause injury to persons under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether orders for removal or pruning should be made and how costs should be apportioned

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the likelihood of failure of some branches of T1 (Eucalyptus longifolia) to be at least possible, even probable, within the next 12 months and that T2 (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) had defects so severe its stem might fail and cause damage. Pruning of T1 would reasonably mitigate risk to property, while T2 required removal. The Applicants' lack of cooperation resulted in additional costs, 20% of which are to be borne by them for the pruning works. Compensation for loss of T2 is to be effected by planting three native trees.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: orders made for removal of T2, pruning of T1, costs apportionment, and replanting.

Orders

  • Respondent to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist to remove T2 to no more than 1 metre above ground within 60 days.
  • Respondent to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist to prune T1 in accordance with the attached photographs and guidelines within 60 days.