Dallas v Watson [2009] NSWLEC 1056

Dallas v Watson [2009] NSWLEC 1056

The tree was principally on Ms Watson's land but stood on the common boundary, making the parties joint owners. Because Ms Dallas had been injured by a falling branch and the tree was likely in the future to cause injury, with no appropriate pruning or maintenance able to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, the statutory test in s 10(2)(b) was met and removal was warranted. Removal costs were apportioned according to the survey evidence showing approximately two thirds of the tree on Ms Watson's land and one third on Ms Dallas' land.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['tree on Common Boundary' 'risk of Injury From Falling Branches' 'removal of Tree' 'contribution to Removal Costs' 'replacement Tree Planting']
['trees Disputes' 'property Law'] ['tree on Common Boundary' 'risk of Injury From Falling Branches' 'removal of Tree' 'contribution to Removal Costs' 'replacement Tree Planting']

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

Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sydney Blue Gum met the statutory test for orders under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'Whether the tree should be removed because of the risk of serious injury from falling live branches.' 'Whether the parties were joint owners of the tree and how the cost of removal should be apportioned.' 'Whether replacement trees should be planted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tree was principally on Ms Watson's land but stood on the common boundary, making the parties joint owners. Because Ms Dallas had been injured by a falling branch and the tree was likely in the future to cause injury, with no appropriate pruning or maintenance able to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, the statutory test in s 10(2)(b) was met and removal was warranted. Removal costs were apportioned according to the survey evidence showing approximately two thirds of the tree on Ms Watson's land and one third on Ms Dallas' land.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['The Sydney Blue Gum tree growing on the common boundary shall be removed by 18 March 2009 with costs met two thirds by Ms Watson and one third by Ms Dallas.' 'The work shall be carried out by an AQF Level 3 arborist with suitable insurances.' 'The work shall be initiated and progressed by Ms Watson who shall...