Stevens v Russell & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1233

Stevens v Russell & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1233

The evidence established only minor damage to the applicant's paving from the tree roots and a potential for future sewer blockage that posed a limited risk, but did not sufficiently establish that the tree caused or was likely to cause damage to the dwelling, brick walls, or other substantive property elements. Most alleged damages arose before the respondents’ ownership; as such, removal of the tree was not justified, major compensation claims were dismissed, and only a nominal order for payment of $200 toward repaving (following completion of work) was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Class 2 Application / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application for tree removal and substantial property compensation dismissed; order made for limited payment toward paving repairs only.
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes' 'damage to Property' 'neighbour Disputes' 'compensation for Property Damage' 'removal of Trees' 'rectification Orders']
['property Law' 'environmental Law'] ['tree Disputes' 'damage to Property' 'neighbour Disputes' 'compensation for Property Damage' 'removal of Trees' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Class 2 Application / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the tree situated on the respondents' property caused or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property within the meaning of s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" 'Whether compensation and/or removal orders should be made under the Trees Act in respect of damage to property and potential injury']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established only minor damage to the applicant's paving from the tree roots and a potential for future sewer blockage that posed a limited risk, but did not sufficiently establish that the tree caused or was likely to cause damage to the dwelling, brick walls, or other substantive property elements. Most alleged damages arose before the respondents’ ownership; as such, removal of the tree was not justified, major compensation claims were dismissed, and only a nominal order for payment of $200 toward repaving (following completion of work) was made.

Court Disposition

Application for tree removal and substantial property compensation dismissed; order made for limited payment toward paving repairs only.

Orders

  • ['The application to remove the tree is dismissed.' "The application for compensation of a sum of $32,383.00 for the repair and rectification of specified elements of the applicant's property is dismissed." 'Should the applicant proceed with the repaving of the rear courtyard, the work is to be completed within 6...