Fifield v Sang and Wang [2018] NSWLEC 1377

Fifield v Sang and Wang [2018] NSWLEC 1377

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not provide evidence identifying which tree caused the sewer damage, which is required before the Court can make orders under Part 2 of the Trees Act. Although roots had entered cracked clay sewer pipes and contributed to the blockage, the primary cause was the condition of old terracotta pipes, the respondents had no warning or indication that their trees were likely to cause damage, and no further sewer works were required after the pipes were lined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Compensation for Sewer Pipe Repair Works / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['damage to Property' 'blocked Sewer Pipe' 'terracotta Pipes' 'jurisdiction Must Apply to a Tree, Not Trees in General']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage'] ['damage to Property' 'blocked Sewer Pipe' 'terracotta Pipes' 'jurisdiction Must Apply to a Tree, Not Trees in General']

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 S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) Seeking Compensation for Sewer Pipe Repair Works / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a tree on the respondents' property caused damage to the applicant's sewer pipes within s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)." 'Whether the applicant had identified which tree caused the damage so as to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW).' 'Whether the respondents should be ordered to pay compensation for sewer pipe repair works undertaken before they had warning or notice that their trees might cause damage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not provide evidence identifying which tree caused the sewer damage, which is required before the Court can make orders under Part 2 of the Trees Act. Although roots had entered cracked clay sewer pipes and contributed to the blockage, the primary cause was the condition of old terracotta pipes, the respondents had no warning or indication that their trees were likely to cause damage, and no further sewer works were required after the pipes were lined.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']