Reading v Lawson [2015] NSWLEC 1001

Reading v Lawson [2015] NSWLEC 1001

The Court was satisfied that Trees 1, 2 and 3 met the s 10(2) jurisdictional test: Tree 1, a severely lopped Jacaranda, was likely in the near future to cause damage or injury due to weak epicormic growth; Tree 2, a Jacaranda with dead wood and hangers, had caused damage to the applicant's shed roof and wire mesh fence and could continue to cause damage or injury; and Tree 3, a lopped Oak abutting the dividing fence, had caused and would continue to cause damage to the fence. The practical and appropriate orders were removal to ground level of Trees 1 and 3 and pruning and periodic dead wood removal for Tree 2, with costs of the work borne by the respondent. The application was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders Seeking Removal of Three Trees on an Adjoining Property / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'potential Injury' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'costs Jurisdiction']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property'] ['damage to Property' 'potential Injury' 'tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'costs Jurisdiction']

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 S7 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for Orders Seeking Removal of Three Trees on an Adjoining Property / Principal Judgment After on Site Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jurisdictional tests under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 were satisfied for each tree.' "Whether the trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicant's property, or were likely to cause injury to any person." 'Whether removal or pruning orders should be made for the three trees.' 'Whether the Commissioner could award costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that Trees 1, 2 and 3 met the s 10(2) jurisdictional test: Tree 1, a severely lopped Jacaranda, was likely in the near future to cause damage or injury due to weak epicormic growth; Tree 2, a Jacaranda with dead wood and hangers, had caused damage to the applicant's shed roof and wire mesh fence and could continue to cause damage or injury; and Tree 3, a lopped Oak abutting the dividing fence, had caused and would continue to cause damage to the fence. The practical and appropriate orders were removal to ground level of Trees 1 and 3 and pruning and periodic dead wood removal for Tree 2, with costs of the work borne by the respondent. The application was therefore...

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['Within 30 days of the date of the orders, the respondent is to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist, with current and appropriate insurance cover, to remove the remaining stump of Tree 1 (Jacaranda) to ground level and poison the stump.' 'Within 30 days of the date of the orders, the respondent is to engage...