Liang v Marsh & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1208

Liang v Marsh & anor [2017] NSWLEC 1208

Based on the evidence, including arborist reports and the location/nature of the poison application, the applicant (or their agent) was responsible for poisoning the otherwise healthy tree, making him responsible for the cost of removal and liable for any damages arising; but compensation for roof/aerial damage was denied as it was a consequence of the applicant’s own actions.

Parties
Applicant: Jia Liang; First Respondent: Paul Marsh; Second Respondent: Diane Gibbins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute—removal/compensation / Principal Judgment; Final Orders
Outcome
Tree removal ordered at the applicant's expense; compensation claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Compensation for Property Damage, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Tests Under Trees Act, Liability for Tree Removal Costs
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Compensation for Property Damage Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Tests Under Trees Act Liability for Tree Removal Costs

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

Parties

Jia Liang

Applicant

Paul Marsh

First Respondent

Diane Gibbins

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute—removal/compensation / Principal Judgment; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dead tree posed a risk of damage or injury under s 10(2) Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was responsible for the death of the tree
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of tree removal

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the evidence, including arborist reports and the location/nature of the poison application, the applicant (or their agent) was responsible for poisoning the otherwise healthy tree, making him responsible for the cost of removal and liable for any damages arising; but compensation for roof/aerial damage was denied as it was a consequence of the applicant’s own actions.

Court Disposition

Tree removal ordered at the applicant's expense; compensation claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Within 30 days, the applicant must engage and pay for a qualified arborist (AQF level 3) to remove the dead Eucalypt at the respondents' property to ground level.
  • Work to be carried out per WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry or equivalent.