Tolkin v Speiser & anor [2013] NSWLEC 1225
Although debris from trees 1 and 2 contributed to the applicant's property damage and the Court's jurisdiction was engaged, as a matter of discretion, no orders were made because regular maintenance is a reasonable expectation and the applicant had the means to avoid or minimise damage by pruning overhanging branches—a remedy already available to her.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Tree Dispute (class 2) Application / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'damage to Property by Trees' 'remedies for Tree Related Nuisance' 'neighbour Disputes']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (class 2) Application / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether debris from the respondents' trees caused damage to the applicant's property justifying removal or compensation under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006" 'Whether existing maintenance and pruning remedies are adequate' 'Whether compensation is payable']
Ratio Decidendi
Although debris from trees 1 and 2 contributed to the applicant's property damage and the Court's jurisdiction was engaged, as a matter of discretion, no orders were made because regular maintenance is a reasonable expectation and the applicant had the means to avoid or minimise damage by pruning overhanging branches—a remedy already available to her.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' 'All exhibits except Exhibit A are returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment