Mahadik v Jones [2024] NSWLEC 1411

Mahadik v Jones [2024] NSWLEC 1411

The respondent's mature ironbark tree has already caused, and is likely in the near future to cause, property damage to the applicant, but whole tree removal is not warranted given the tree's value and the proportionality of remedy. Pruning by a qualified arborist as specified will address the risk of damage. Property maintenance issues and indirect damage do not justify compensation or further relief.

Parties
Applicant: Mahesh Mahadik; First Respondent: Carol Jones; Second Respondent: Lynn Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 – Pt 2 Application / Principal Judgment After Hearings
Outcome
Application granted to the extent of orders for pruning and hazard reduction; no compensation awarded; Lynn Jones joined as the second respondent.
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Remedies for Property Damage, Neighbourhood Nuisance, Pruning Orders
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Remedies for Property Damage Neighbourhood Nuisance Pruning 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahesh Mahadik

Applicant

Carol Jones

First Respondent

Lynn Jones

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 – Pt 2 Application / Principal Judgment After Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a neighbouring tree has caused or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether tree removal or pruning should be ordered to remedy or prevent damage
  3. 3 Whether compensation should be ordered for damage caused

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's mature ironbark tree has already caused, and is likely in the near future to cause, property damage to the applicant, but whole tree removal is not warranted given the tree's value and the proportionality of remedy. Pruning by a qualified arborist as specified will address the risk of damage. Property maintenance issues and indirect damage do not justify compensation or further relief.

Court Disposition

Application granted to the extent of orders for pruning and hazard reduction; no compensation awarded; Lynn Jones joined as the second respondent.

Orders

  • Lynn Jones is joined as the second respondent.
  • Respondents to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with appropriate insurances to carry out specified pruning works within 60 days.