Blue v Camilleri (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1476

Blue v Camilleri (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 1476

The Court found that the largest root had most probably contributed to the retaining wall's rotation but that tree roots were not the sole cause of its condition, and the respondents had not been negligent. Therefore, no orders for compensation or tree removal were made. An order nullifying the previous prohibition on excavation within 3 metres was issued, allowing repair works.

Parties
Applicant: Jeanette Blue; First Respondent: Frank Camilleri; Second Respondent: Rose Camilleri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Part 2 Application / Principal Judgment, Post Investigation and Further Submissions
Outcome
Orders made: permission for excavation within root zone; exhibits returned (except Exhibit A); no orders for compensation, tree removal, or crown pruning.
Legal Topics
Damage to Retaining Wall, Tree Related Disputes, Order Variation
Property Environmental Damage to Retaining Wall Tree Related Disputes Order Variation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanette Blue

Applicant

Frank Camilleri

First Respondent

Rose Camilleri

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Part 2 Application / Principal Judgment, Post Investigation and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' tree caused damage to the applicant's retaining wall
  2. 2 Whether excavation or repair works near the tree may be undertaken
  3. 3 Whether previous orders prevent investigation or repair

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the largest root had most probably contributed to the retaining wall's rotation but that tree roots were not the sole cause of its condition, and the respondents had not been negligent. Therefore, no orders for compensation or tree removal were made. An order nullifying the previous prohibition on excavation within 3 metres was issued, allowing repair works.

Court Disposition

Orders made: permission for excavation within root zone; exhibits returned (except Exhibit A); no orders for compensation, tree removal, or crown pruning.

Orders

  • The applicant and respondents, or contractors they might engage, may carry out excavation within the root zone (including within 3 metres of the base of the trunk) of the respondents' Spotted Gum where works do not damage structural roots and do not impact the health or stability of the tree. If the tree has been or...
  • The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A.