Thompson v Bignall [2009] NSWLEC 1149

Thompson v Bignall [2009] NSWLEC 1149

Although the tree caused minor damage, this was a single incident in 18 years and there is no sufficient evidence of future likelihood of harm; dropping of fruit and fear of root damage do not justify removal or pruning; accordingly, the threshold for intervention under the Act is not met.

Parties
Applicant: Mark and Belinda Thompson; Respondent: Lorraine Bignall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes Between Neighbours, Damage to Property by Trees, Risk of Injury by Trees
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Between Neighbours Damage to Property by Trees Risk of Injury by Trees

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark and Belinda Thompson

Applicant

Lorraine Bignall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's Liquidambar tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons; Whether the court should order removal or pruning of the tree

Ratio Decidendi

Although the tree caused minor damage, this was a single incident in 18 years and there is no sufficient evidence of future likelihood of harm; dropping of fruit and fear of root damage do not justify removal or pruning; accordingly, the threshold for intervention under the Act is not met.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.