Meredith v Cave [2008] NSWLEC 1216

Meredith v Cave [2008] NSWLEC 1216

The Brush Box and Mock Olive had caused root damage to Mr Meredith's sewer pipes, satisfying s 10(2)(a), and their removal at the tree owners' expense was appropriate. The evidence did not establish that the Liquidambar roots were presently impacting Mr Meredith's sewer or otherwise satisfied s 10(2)(a), and falling leaves and fruit did not justify removal. Because Mr Meredith had notified the tree owners of the sewer blockage and risk of repetition in 2006 and they took no action before the mid-2007 incident, compensation of $554.40 was ordered. A further electric eel order was refused because Mr Meredith delayed in bringing the application after the mid-2007 blockage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Neighbouring Trees and Sewer Pipe Damage / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part.
Legal Topics
['blocked Sewer Pipes' 'tree Root Damage' 'tree Removal' 'compensation' 'notice to Neighbours' 'falling Leaves and Fruit']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['blocked Sewer Pipes' 'tree Root Damage' 'tree Removal' 'compensation' 'notice to Neighbours' 'falling Leaves and Fruit']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Concerning Neighbouring Trees and Sewer Pipe Damage / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Brush Box, Mock Olive and Liquidambar on the respondents' property had caused, or were likely to cause, damage to the applicant's property within s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the respondents should be ordered to remove trees at their expense.' "Whether compensation should be ordered for root removal by electric eel and video filming of the applicant's sewer pipe." 'Whether the respondents should pay for a further electric eel process after tree removal.' 'Whether falling leaves and fruit from the Liquidambar justified interference with or removal of that tree.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Brush Box and Mock Olive had caused root damage to Mr Meredith's sewer pipes, satisfying s 10(2)(a), and their removal at the tree owners' expense was appropriate. The evidence did not establish that the Liquidambar roots were presently impacting Mr Meredith's sewer or otherwise satisfied s 10(2)(a), and falling leaves and fruit did not justify removal. Because Mr Meredith had notified the tree owners of the sewer blockage and risk of repetition in 2006 and they took no action before the mid-2007 incident, compensation of $554.40 was ordered. A further electric eel order was refused because Mr Meredith delayed in bringing the application after the mid-2007 blockage.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part.

Orders

  • ['Formal orders were made pursuant to s 9 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, but were not reproduced in the decision.' "The Brush Box and Mock Olive are to be removed within two months of the Court's orders by an AQF level 3 qualified arborist with appropriate insurances, at the tree owners'...