Roberts v Mangione [2008] NSWLEC 1161

Roberts v Mangione [2008] NSWLEC 1161

The evidence did not establish that any of the trees had caused, were presently causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property, or that they posed a likely risk of injury to any person; accordingly none of the tests in s 10(2) of the Act was satisfied and the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders. In any event, the Court would not have made orders as a matter of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Trees (neighbours) / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['neighbouring Trees' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2) of the Act' 'discretion to Make Tree Orders']
['trees (neighbours)' 'land and Environment'] ['neighbouring Trees' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2) of the Act' 'discretion to Make Tree 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Trees (neighbours) / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Leighton Greens had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the Roberts' property, or were a likely risk of injury to any person." "Whether the Banksia and Cypress trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the Roberts' property, including from detritus affecting gutters or roof areas, or were a likely risk of injury to any person." 'Whether, even if jurisdiction were enlivened, the Court should exercise its discretion to make orders concerning the trees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that any of the trees had caused, were presently causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the applicants' property, or that they posed a likely risk of injury to any person; accordingly none of the tests in s 10(2) of the Act was satisfied and the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders. In any event, the Court would not have made orders as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']