Wong v Yu [2017] NSWLEC 1518

Wong v Yu [2017] NSWLEC 1518

The application to remove the tree was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence that the tree, or any significant living part, was likely to fail and cause damage or injury. However, it was foreseeable that dead wood from the tree could cause further damage or injury, so pruning of dead wood was ordered. Compensation for roof repair was granted as the evidence linked the damage to the respondent's tree, but the claim for plumbing costs was denied due to lack of evidence linking the root to the respondent's tree.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Chun Cheung Wong; Respondent: Mr Jiang Yu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Orders for arborist pruning, reimbursement for roof repairs, and consequential access; application for tree removal dismissed; claim for plumbing compensation rejected.
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Damage to Property, Compensation, Pruning Orders
Environmental Law Property Law Tree Disputes Damage to Property Compensation Pruning Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Chun Cheung Wong

Applicant

Mr Jiang Yu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's tree has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to persons under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether compensation should be awarded for repair costs allegedly caused by the respondent's tree
  3. 3 Whether pruning or removal orders are warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The application to remove the tree was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence that the tree, or any significant living part, was likely to fail and cause damage or injury. However, it was foreseeable that dead wood from the tree could cause further damage or injury, so pruning of dead wood was ordered. Compensation for roof repair was granted as the evidence linked the damage to the respondent's tree, but the claim for plumbing costs was denied due to lack of evidence linking the root to the respondent's tree.

Court Disposition

Orders for arborist pruning, reimbursement for roof repairs, and consequential access; application for tree removal dismissed; claim for plumbing compensation rejected.

Orders

  • The application to remove the tree is dismissed.
  • Respondent to engage and pay for a qualified arborist to remove all dead wood with a diameter of 30mm or greater from all parts of the canopy of the Sydney Blue Gum within 30 days.