Kamfam Pty Ltd v Robertson [2012] NSWLEC 1150

Kamfam Pty Ltd v Robertson [2012] NSWLEC 1150

Most elements of the applicant's claim were not proven to the standard required by s 10(2). Orders for removal of the tree and roots, compensation for internal water damage, roof, driveway, and archway were refused. Pruning was ordered to prevent branches contacting the roof, and repair of the carport columns and fence was apportioned between the parties, with respondents contributing 50% to the cost of replacing columns.

Parties
Applicant: Kamfam Pty Ltd; Respondents: P and A Robertson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld in part; rectification works and limited pruning ordered; majority of compensation claim refused; tree removal refused.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Damage to Property by Trees, Compensation, Pruning and Rectification Orders
Environmental Law Property Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Damage to Property by Trees Compensation Pruning and Rectification Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamfam Pty Ltd

Applicant

P and A Robertson

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Camphor Laurel tree caused damage to the applicant's property under the Act
  2. 2 Whether respondents are liable for claimed losses and remedial works
  3. 3 Whether orders for pruning, removal, root work or compensation should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Most elements of the applicant's claim were not proven to the standard required by s 10(2). Orders for removal of the tree and roots, compensation for internal water damage, roof, driveway, and archway were refused. Pruning was ordered to prevent branches contacting the roof, and repair of the carport columns and fence was apportioned between the parties, with respondents contributing 50% to the cost of replacing columns.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; rectification works and limited pruning ordered; majority of compensation claim refused; tree removal refused.

Orders

  • Application to remove the tree and its roots dismissed
  • Compensation for internal water damage, roof, guttering, driveway, and archway refused