Carnus v Chiaraglio (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 1208

Due to the damage caused by the Lemon-scented Gum tree to the applicant's property, removal is justified and costs are to be borne by the respondent.

Parties: Applicant: L Carnus; Respondent: J Chiararaglio; Respondent's Solicitor: Gadens Lawyers
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 16 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Application / Final Orders After Hearing
Outcome: Tree removal ordered; costs apportioned to respondent; applicant entitled to reimbursement for certain works.
Legal Topics: Tree Removal, Boundary Dispute, Damage to Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

L Carnus

Applicant

J Chiararaglio

Respondent

Gadens Lawyers

Respondent's Solicitor

Application / Final Orders After Hearing

1 Whether the Lemon-scented Gum tree should be removed due to damage caused to applicant's property
2 Who should bear the cost of tree removal and related works

Due to the damage caused by the Lemon-scented Gum tree to the applicant's property, removal is justified and costs are to be borne by the respondent.

Tree removal ordered; costs apportioned to respondent; applicant entitled to reimbursement for certain works.

The respondent is to remove the Lemon-scented Gum within 90 days.
Removal is to a height no greater than 2 m above the ground and stump to be poisoned.