Roebeck & anor v Nandi [2015] NSWLEC 1289

Roebeck & anor v Nandi [2015] NSWLEC 1289

The fence displacement amounted to damage and was caused by the growth and proximity of trees T1 and T2, with further damage likely. The trees had minimal benefits, were growing in a restricted space and were likely to cause further problems, so their removal and shared repair or replacement of the damaged fence panels were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Consent Orders
Outcome
The application is upheld and consent orders are made.
Legal Topics
['tree Removal' 'damage to Dividing Fence' 'consent Orders' 'court Jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property'] ['tree Removal' 'damage to Dividing Fence' 'consent Orders' 'court Jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

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 Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's jurisdiction was enlivened with regard to the two Chinese Tallow trees." 'Whether removal of the trees and repair or replacement of the damaged fence panels were appropriate orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The fence displacement amounted to damage and was caused by the growth and proximity of trees T1 and T2, with further damage likely. The trees had minimal benefits, were growing in a restricted space and were likely to cause further problems, so their removal and shared repair or replacement of the damaged fence panels were appropriate.

Court Disposition

The application is upheld and consent orders are made.

Orders

  • ["The application for the removal of the two trees identified as T1 and T2 ('Trees') is upheld." 'By 5 August 2015, the Respondent is to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 Arborist, with proof of current adequate and appropriate insurance cover, to remove the Trees, any roots and their stumps, which are to be ground...