Newman v Graham [2024] NSWLEC 1512

Newman v Graham [2024] NSWLEC 1512

Orders for pruning of deadwood from Eucalyptus T5, removal of Glossy Privet T7 and fence repair were justified as T5 was likely to cause damage or injury and T7 had damaged the boundary fence, thus engaging s 10(2) of the Trees Act; claims for compensation and further works were refused as there was insufficient evidence of actionable damage, and simple maintenance of leaves and gutters is the applicant's responsibility under the Tree Dispute Principle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extemporaneous Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Orders made for limited works, otherwise application refused
Legal Topics
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'nuisance' 'dividing Fences' 'damage to Property' 'jurisdictional Requirements' 'orders Relating to Trees']
['property Law' 'environmental Law' 'neighbour Disputes'] ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'nuisance' 'dividing Fences' 'damage to Property' 'jurisdictional Requirements' 'orders Relating to 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Extemporaneous Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether any of the respondents' trees have caused or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons within the meaning of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" 'Whether the applicant is entitled to orders for pruning/removal of trees and/or compensation for alleged damage' "Whether dropped leaves and debris constitute 'damage' under the Act" 'Whether the fence has suffered actionable damage caused by trees or roots']

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for pruning of deadwood from Eucalyptus T5, removal of Glossy Privet T7 and fence repair were justified as T5 was likely to cause damage or injury and T7 had damaged the boundary fence, thus engaging s 10(2) of the Trees Act; claims for compensation and further works were refused as there was insufficient evidence of actionable damage, and simple maintenance of leaves and gutters is the applicant's responsibility under the Tree Dispute Principle.

Court Disposition

Orders made for limited works, otherwise application refused

Orders

  • ["Within 90 days, respondents at their expense shall prune all deadwood overhanging applicant's land from Eucalyptus T5 and remove Glossy Privet T7, including grinding Privet roots at least 250 mm below ground level and reconsolidating soil." 'Works shall be completed by AQF level 3 arborists with all appropriate...