Catley & anor v Hajarat & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1306

The Court found that only Tree B met the jurisdictional test for likely future damage or injury under s 10(2) of the Act, due to observed storm damage and compromised structural root, and ordered its removal. Insufficient evidence was found for Trees A and C to satisfy the required threshold.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 05 August 2015
Procedural Posture: Tree Dispute / Final Orders
Outcome: Application upheld in part; orders made for removal of Tree B
Legal Topics: ['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'risk of Property Damage' 'risk of Injury to Persons']

['environmental Law' 'property Law'] ['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'risk of Property Damage' 'risk of Injury to Persons']

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

Procedural Posture

Tree Dispute / Final Orders

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether remaining trees are likely to cause damage to applicant's property or injury to persons" 'Jurisdictional test under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; orders made for removal of Tree B

Orders

['The application is upheld in part.' 'Application to remove Tree A and Tree C is dismissed.' 'Within 90 days, respondents to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist to remove Tree B to ground level and grind the stump.' 'Work to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity...