Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062

Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062

The Court dismissed the application because the smaller Jacaranda had not caused, was not causing, and was not likely within the relevant period to cause damage, and the larger Jacaranda did not give rise to jurisdictional grounds warranting orders: alleged root and detritus damage was not proved, the staining evidence did not support a finding of tree-caused damage, any fence or sewer vent pipe damage was minor and inconsequential, and the distance between the larger tree and powerlines did not create a likely risk of injury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['jacaranda Trees' 'neighbouring Trees' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'ordinary Maintenance Obligations in Urban Areas']
['trees Disputes' 'land and Environment'] ['jacaranda Trees' 'neighbouring Trees' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'ordinary Maintenance Obligations in Urban Areas']

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

Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Jacaranda trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether the Jacaranda trees were likely to cause injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether alleged staining, fence displacement, sewer vent pipe displacement, falling detritus, termites, birds, roots, or proximity to powerlines justified orders for interference with or removal of the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because the smaller Jacaranda had not caused, was not causing, and was not likely within the relevant period to cause damage, and the larger Jacaranda did not give rise to jurisdictional grounds warranting orders: alleged root and detritus damage was not proved, the staining evidence did not support a finding of tree-caused damage, any fence or sewer vent pipe damage was minor and inconsequential, and the distance between the larger tree and powerlines did not create a likely risk of injury.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']