Youman v D'Accione [2024] NSWLEC 1614

Youman v D'Accione [2024] NSWLEC 1614

The Court found the tree caused minor damage to the applicants’ concrete strip and terracotta pipes, engaging s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; debris did not amount to actionable damage. Orders for removal were justified due to ongoing likelihood of root intrusion, but applicants were required to contribute 33% of removal costs due to their role in the tree’s decline through root removal and herbicide application.

Parties
First Applicant: John Leslie Youman; Second Applicant: Rose Mary Youman; Respondent: Madalena Serena D'Accione
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Principal Judgment Orders for Removal of Tree
Outcome
Orders for removal of the tree with cost-sharing; partial claim refusal
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Damage to Property, Orders Relating to Trees, Neighbourhood Disputes
Property Law Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Damage to Property Orders Relating to Trees 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Leslie Youman

First Applicant

Rose Mary Youman

Second Applicant

Madalena Serena D'Accione

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Principal Judgment Orders for Removal of Tree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tree caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property or likely to cause injury to persons
  2. 2 Whether damage from debris or the need for maintenance constitutes actionable 'damage' under the Trees Act
  3. 3 Whether orders for tree removal should be made and on what terms, including contribution to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the tree caused minor damage to the applicants’ concrete strip and terracotta pipes, engaging s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; debris did not amount to actionable damage. Orders for removal were justified due to ongoing likelihood of root intrusion, but applicants were required to contribute 33% of removal costs due to their role in the tree’s decline through root removal and herbicide application.

Court Disposition

Orders for removal of the tree with cost-sharing; partial claim refusal

Orders

  • The respondent shall engage AQF level 3 arborists to remove the tree to near ground level and poison the stump by 31 March 2025, with reshooting to be treated until dead.
  • Within 60 days, both parties to exchange one quotation for the works; the lower quotation will be the basis for the applicants' contribution.