Yan v Khanaly [2023] NSWLEC 1006

Yan v Khanaly [2023] NSWLEC 1006

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 that the respondents' trees have caused, are causing, or are likely in the near future to cause actionable damage or injury. Annoyance or maintenance burdens from tree debris do not found a cause for intervention. No orders for removal, insurance, or cost-sharing are justified.

Parties
Applicant: Jing Wen Yan; First Respondent: Siamak Khanaly; Second Respondent: Neda Karimi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Neighbour Disputes, Damage to Property, Risk of Injury, Jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Neighbour Disputes Damage to Property Risk of Injury Jurisdiction Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jing Wen Yan

Applicant

Siamak Khanaly

First Respondent

Neda Karimi

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trees on the respondents' property have caused, are causing, or are likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether trees are likely to cause injury to any person
  3. 3 Whether evidence exists to satisfy the requirements for orders under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 that the respondents' trees have caused, are causing, or are likely in the near future to cause actionable damage or injury. Annoyance or maintenance burdens from tree debris do not found a cause for intervention. No orders for removal, insurance, or cost-sharing are justified.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.