Soyunmez v Kasule [2011] NSWLEC 1233

Soyunmez v Kasule [2011] NSWLEC 1233

While roots from the respondents' trees likely contributed to sewer blockages and some cracks, poor construction and age of the path, as well as the presence of other trees, were significant contributing factors. The applicant failed to strictly prove causation for each tree, so removal was not ordered. Instead, a proportionate sharing of costs for works remedying the underlying problem was fair.

Parties
Applicant: S Soyunmez; Respondents: J & A Kasule
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision at First Instance
Outcome
Application to remove trees dismissed; orders made for replacement of sewer pipe and repair of pathway with apportionment of costs.
Legal Topics
Trees and Neighbours, Damage to Property, Cost Apportionment
Property Law Environmental Law Trees and Neighbours Damage to Property Cost Apportionment

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S Soyunmez

Applicant

J & A Kasule

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Final Decision at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether roots from respondents' trees have caused or are likely to cause damage to applicant's property under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether removal of trees is warranted or alternative remedies should be ordered
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment of costs for rectification works

Ratio Decidendi

While roots from the respondents' trees likely contributed to sewer blockages and some cracks, poor construction and age of the path, as well as the presence of other trees, were significant contributing factors. The applicant failed to strictly prove causation for each tree, so removal was not ordered. Instead, a proportionate sharing of costs for works remedying the underlying problem was fair.

Court Disposition

Application to remove trees dismissed; orders made for replacement of sewer pipe and repair of pathway with apportionment of costs.

Orders

  • The application to remove the trees is dismissed.
  • Within 60 days, the applicant is to obtain 3 written quotes for PVC sewer pipe and concrete path replacement, specifying cost per linear metre.