Black v Johnson [2007] NSWLEC 359

Black v Johnson [2007] NSWLEC 359

Because a branch had detached from one of the trees, fallen onto the Blacks' property and damaged roof tiles, the Court could not be satisfied that there was no likelihood of further damage in the near future to Mr and Mrs Black's property; therefore the third test posed by section 10(2)(a) of the Act was satisfied and the proceedings would resume on site.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Trees (neighbours) Neighbour Application / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
The third test posed by section 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was satisfied; the proceedings were to resume on site for further consideration of what, if anything, should be ordered concerning the trees, timeframe and costs.
Legal Topics
['neighbour Application' 'preliminary Hearing' 'likelihood of Damage to Property From Trees']
['trees (disputes Between Neighbours)'] ['neighbour Application' 'preliminary Hearing' 'likelihood of Damage to Property From 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

Trees (neighbours) Neighbour Application / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any of the four tests posed by s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 had been satisfied at a preliminary hearing.' "Whether there was a likelihood of further damage in the near future to Mr and Mrs Black's property from the trees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because a branch had detached from one of the trees, fallen onto the Blacks' property and damaged roof tiles, the Court could not be satisfied that there was no likelihood of further damage in the near future to Mr and Mrs Black's property; therefore the third test posed by section 10(2)(a) of the Act was satisfied and the proceedings would resume on site.

Court Disposition

The third test posed by section 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was satisfied; the proceedings were to resume on site for further consideration of what, if anything, should be ordered concerning the trees, timeframe and costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings will resume on site on a date to be notified to the parties toward the end of July.' 'Directions setting the date of the resumed hearing and a further timetable for exchange of materials between the parties, including the Council, will be provided to the parties in writing.']