Kounavis v Roux; Hickin v Roux [2021] NSWLEC 1646

Kounavis v Roux; Hickin v Roux [2021] NSWLEC 1646

The three hoop pines are likely to cause damage or injury within the meaning of the Act and must be removed; the respondent must remove the trees through their own property and not via crane access through Ms Kounavis' property because the risk of damage to her property outweighs the cost difference to the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Maria Kounavis; Respondent: Ernest Roux; First Applicant: John Charles Hickin; Second Applicant: Deonne Amy Hickin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Final Orders
Outcome
Applications granted to the extent of the orders below.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Remedies, Jurisdictional Prerequisites, Access for Works
Property Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Remedies Jurisdictional Prerequisites Access for Works

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Kounavis

Applicant

Ernest Roux

Respondent

John Charles Hickin

First Applicant

Deonne Amy Hickin

Second Applicant

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three trees on the respondent's property are likely to cause damage or injury within meaning of the Act
  2. 2 Whether the applicants made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute
  3. 3 Whether orders should be made for the removal of the trees

Ratio Decidendi

The three hoop pines are likely to cause damage or injury within the meaning of the Act and must be removed; the respondent must remove the trees through their own property and not via crane access through Ms Kounavis' property because the risk of damage to her property outweighs the cost difference to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Applications granted to the extent of the orders below.

Orders

  • Respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist to remove the three hoop pines near their eastern boundary to no more than one metre above ground, works principally done from within respondent's property, minor elements and debris clean-up excepted.
  • Any removal of logwood and branches is to be done via respondent's property.