Rolls v Davies [2007] NSWLEC 533
The application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the tests in s 10(2) of the Act were satisfied for the relevant limbs or trees. The one tree likely to fail would fail entirely within the respondent's property and would not be capable of damaging the applicants' property or, given the current unoccupied state of that property, be likely to injure any person.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 August 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Neighbour Application Under S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['neighbour Application' 'risk of Tree Failure' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Neighbour Application Under S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the tests in s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 were satisfied concerning limbs or trees on the respondent's property." "Whether any of the trees or overhanging branches were likely to fail in a way that could damage the applicants' property or injure any person."]
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the tests in s 10(2) of the Act were satisfied for the relevant limbs or trees. The one tree likely to fail would fail entirely within the respondent's property and would not be capable of damaging the applicants' property or, given the current unoccupied state of that property, be likely to injure any person.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment