Lambert v Muir [2014] NSWLEC 1101

Lambert v Muir [2014] NSWLEC 1101

The application was upheld in part because Mrs Lambert did not establish injury from the wattles, ordinary tree debris did not justify intervention, the gum tree was not likely to damage the service wire in the near future, and the Jacaranda was outside Part 2A jurisdiction. However, branches of wattles #4 and #5 were likely in the near future to damage roof guttering, the television antenna and pay-television receiver, justifying pruning for clearance, and wattles #1 and #2 formed part of a hedge and severely obstructed a significant lake view from Mrs Lambert's dwelling, making removal the suitable means to restore the view.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication
Outcome
Application upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'damage to Property' 'injury From Trees' 'hedge Obstruction of Views and Sunlight' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 and Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['tree Removal' 'tree Pruning' 'damage to Property' 'injury From Trees' 'hedge Obstruction of Views and Sunlight' 'jurisdiction Under Part 2 and Part 2 a 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.

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

Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment; Extemporaneous Decision Revised and Edited Prior to Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the wattles caused injury to Mrs Lambert through allergic reaction or debris.' 'Whether the gum tree or wattles caused, or were likely in the near future to cause, damage to property.' 'Whether the Jacaranda could be the subject of orders under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 for obstruction of sunlight to a clothesline.' 'Whether the wattles formed a hedge that severely obstructed views of the lake or sunlight.' "What orders, if any, should be made for removal or pruning of trees on Mr Muir's property."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was upheld in part because Mrs Lambert did not establish injury from the wattles, ordinary tree debris did not justify intervention, the gum tree was not likely to damage the service wire in the near future, and the Jacaranda was outside Part 2A jurisdiction. However, branches of wattles #4 and #5 were likely in the near future to damage roof guttering, the television antenna and pay-television receiver, justifying pruning for clearance, and wattles #1 and #2 formed part of a hedge and severely obstructed a significant lake view from Mrs Lambert's dwelling, making removal the suitable means to restore the view.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['Within 60 days of the date of these orders Mr Muir is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3) to remove trees #1 and #2 to no more than 300mm above ground level and to poison the stumps. The works must be done in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree...