Tao v Zhang [2023] NSWLEC 1781

Tao v Zhang [2023] NSWLEC 1781

There was sufficient evidence that the structural condition of the tree had deteriorated, demonstrated by multiple instances of large and smaller branch failures, both during and outside storm events. Given the risk to property and risk of injury to persons on both properties, including young children, and because remedial pruning would not adequately mitigate this risk, the only adequate remedy was for the tree to be removed. The requirements of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 were satisfied for making an order for removal, with costs for removal to be borne by the respondents as owners of the tree.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Tree removal ordered at respondents' expense.
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'neighbour Law' 'liability for Property Damage' 'risk of Injury From Trees']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'neighbour Law' 'liability for Property Damage' 'risk of Injury From Trees']

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

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Application / Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property" 'Whether the tree is likely to cause injury to any person' 'Whether removal of the tree is justified under the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006']

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence that the structural condition of the tree had deteriorated, demonstrated by multiple instances of large and smaller branch failures, both during and outside storm events. Given the risk to property and risk of injury to persons on both properties, including young children, and because remedial pruning would not adequately mitigate this risk, the only adequate remedy was for the tree to be removed. The requirements of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 were satisfied for making an order for removal, with costs for removal to be borne by the respondents as owners of the tree.

Court Disposition

Tree removal ordered at respondents' expense.

Orders

  • ['The respondents, at their expense, shall employ Australian Quality Framework (AQF) level 3 arborists with all appropriate insurances to remove the tree from their rear yard to around ground level and poison the stump, within 90 days of the date of these orders.' 'The tree removal works shall be completed in...