Terenzini v Clulow [2020] NSWLEC 1109

Terenzini v Clulow [2020] NSWLEC 1109

The Court found that one or more of the respondent's Lilly Pillies had caused damage to the applicant's sewer pipe and path, and that all three trees were likely to cause further damage. There was no practical solution to prevent future damage without removing the trees. Therefore, orders for removal were appropriate under the Trees Act.

Parties
Applicant: John Terenzini; Respondent: Michael Clulow
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Damage to Property, Tree Removal, Neighbour Disputes

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

Parties

John Terenzini

Applicant

Michael Clulow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Final Determination

  1. 1 Whether the trees have caused damage to the applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether the trees are likely to cause damage
  3. 3 Whether the trees can be retained

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that one or more of the respondent's Lilly Pillies had caused damage to the applicant's sewer pipe and path, and that all three trees were likely to cause further damage. There was no practical solution to prevent future damage without removing the trees. Therefore, orders for removal were appropriate under the Trees Act.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Within 60 days, respondent to engage and pay for a qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) to remove the three trees to no more than one metre above ground level.
  • Works must comply with the 2016 Safe Work Australia Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work.