Schultz & anor v Bohringer [2007] NSWLEC 560

Schultz & anor v Bohringer [2007] NSWLEC 560

The past damage caused by the tree to the applicants' retaining wall is sufficient to enliven the Court's jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a) of the Act and it is prudent to make orders in terms of the parties' agreement to remove the tree and share the costs equally.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Neighbour Application / Consent Orders
Outcome
Consent orders made for removal of tree and equal sharing of costs.
Legal Topics
['trees (neighbours)' 'tree Removal' 'damage to Retaining Wall']
['environmental Law'] ['trees (neighbours)' 'tree Removal' 'damage to Retaining Wall']

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

Neighbour Application / Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Norfolk Island Pine has caused sufficient damage to enliven jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' "Whether the tree should be removed in accordance with the parties' agreement"]

Ratio Decidendi

The past damage caused by the tree to the applicants' retaining wall is sufficient to enliven the Court's jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a) of the Act and it is prudent to make orders in terms of the parties' agreement to remove the tree and share the costs equally.

Court Disposition

Consent orders made for removal of tree and equal sharing of costs.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to share equally the cost of removal of the Norfolk Island Pine located at 44 Beryl Street, Coffs Harbour.']