Roodenrys v Moore [2008] NSWLEC 1273

Roodenrys v Moore [2008] NSWLEC 1273

Trees 1 and 3 did not satisfy the statutory tests because they had not caused damage, were not causing damage, were not likely to cause damage in the near future, and were not likely to cause injury. Tree 2 had caused and possibly was causing sewer blockage, but intervention was not appropriate because the old pipes contributed to the blockage and replacement with PVC pipes meant near-future damage was unlikely. Tree 4 satisfied the tests because dead or broken branches had caused and were likely to cause damage and a sufficient risk of injury, but the parties reached an agreement to remove all four trees sharing costs equally and the applicants no longer sought an order, so the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['removal of Trees' 'damage to Property' 'risk of Injury to Persons' 'pruning of Trees']
['trees Disputes' 'environmental Law' 'property Law'] ['removal of Trees' 'damage to Property' 'risk of Injury to Persons' 'pruning of Trees']

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

Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any of the four trees met the tests in s 10(2)(a) or (b) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.' 'If any tree met those tests, what order, if any, should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Trees 1 and 3 did not satisfy the statutory tests because they had not caused damage, were not causing damage, were not likely to cause damage in the near future, and were not likely to cause injury. Tree 2 had caused and possibly was causing sewer blockage, but intervention was not appropriate because the old pipes contributed to the blockage and replacement with PVC pipes meant near-future damage was unlikely. Tree 4 satisfied the tests because dead or broken branches had caused and were likely to cause damage and a sufficient risk of injury, but the parties reached an agreement to remove all four trees sharing costs equally and the applicants no longer sought an order, so the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']