Schreiber v Eadie [2008] NSWLEC 1451

The tree caused minor damage to garden wall, paving, and contributed to sewer overflow, meeting some statutory tests; however, the damage is inconsequential given planned renovations. Other claimed damages do not meet statutory tests or are not actionable under the Act. Removal of the tree is not warranted; pruning is appropriate and agreed by consent.

Parties: Applicant: Kevin Schreiber; Respondent: Peter Eadie
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 October 2008
Procedural Posture: Tree Dispute / Final Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome: Application for removal of the tree refused; orders for pruning by consent.
Legal Topics: Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Damage to Property, Pruning Orders, Neighbourhood Disputes

Property Law Environmental Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Damage to Property Pruning Orders Neighbourhood 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

Kevin Schreiber

Applicant

Peter Eadie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute / Final Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Liquidambar tree caused or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
2 Whether the damage by the tree is sufficient to warrant Court intervention
3 Whether removal or pruning orders should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for removal of the tree refused; orders for pruning by consent.

Orders

The parties shall have the branches of the tree pruned and share the cost equally.
Pruning shall be back to near the boundary and as recommended by an AQF Level 5 arborist and agreed to by Mr Eadie.