Trinh v Hui & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1046

Trinh v Hui & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1046

As the tree, given its structural damage, is likely to cause injury in the near future, the jurisdictional requirements under the Act are satisfied. However, as no evidence of property damage was provided, compensation is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Ms S Trinh; Respondent: Mr J Hui; Respondent: Ms J Chung
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application granted in part; tree removal ordered; compensation refused.
Legal Topics
Tree Disputes, Neighbourhood Damage, Injury Prevention

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms S Trinh

Applicant

Mr J Hui

Respondent

Ms J Chung

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Hearing and Decision

  1. 1 Whether the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property or injury to any person under s 10(2) of the Act
  2. 2 Whether compensation for property damage should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

As the tree, given its structural damage, is likely to cause injury in the near future, the jurisdictional requirements under the Act are satisfied. However, as no evidence of property damage was provided, compensation is refused.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; tree removal ordered; compensation refused.

Orders

  • Within seven days, respondents to engage and pay for a qualified arborist with appropriate insurance to remove the Liquidambar to ground level, including all parts on the applicant's property.
  • Work to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry or equivalent.