Hsu-Kam v Yu [2021] NSWLEC 1789

Hsu-Kam v Yu [2021] NSWLEC 1789

There is insufficient evidence that the respondent's trees have caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property in the near future, nor is there a genuine risk of injury. Ordinary maintenance concerns and aesthetic preferences do not trigger the jurisdiction of the Trees Act. The respondents have consistently permitted works to prevent potential damage but the applicant failed to act. Therefore, the application is dismissed as s 10(2) of the Trees Act is not satisfied.

Parties
Applicant: Patty Hsu-Kam; First Respondent: Zuhong Yu; Second Respondent: Yawen Huang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trees Disputes Between Neighbours, Damage to Property, Risk of Injury, Heritage Garden Maintenance, Pruning Orders
Property Law Environmental Law Trees Disputes Between Neighbours Damage to Property Risk of Injury Heritage Garden Maintenance Pruning 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patty Hsu-Kam

Applicant

Zuhong Yu

First Respondent

Yawen Huang

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees caused or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether the trees present a genuine risk of injury to any person
  3. 3 Applicant's entitlement to orders for pruning, removal, and access under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence that the respondent's trees have caused, are causing, or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property in the near future, nor is there a genuine risk of injury. Ordinary maintenance concerns and aesthetic preferences do not trigger the jurisdiction of the Trees Act. The respondents have consistently permitted works to prevent potential damage but the applicant failed to act. Therefore, the application is dismissed as s 10(2) of the Trees Act is not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed