Amjadi v Smith [2021] NSWLEC 1648

Amjadi v Smith [2021] NSWLEC 1648

The tree has caused minor damage but not enough to justify removal or compensation; branches likely to cause further damage or injury in the near future, warranting pruning and inspection for hazardous branches; duty of care requires routine maintenance and inspection by owner; compensation and removal refused, pruning and reporting ordered.

Parties
Applicant: Shahin Amjadi; First Respondent: Marea Annette Smith in her capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith; Second Respondent: Michael Christopher Smith in his capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith; Third Respondent: Antoinette Louise Mary Smith in her capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith; Fourth Respondent: The Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith, by her Executors Marea Annette Smith, Michael Christopher Smith and Antoinette Louise Mary Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Pt 2 Application (trees Act) / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application for removal and compensation refused; pruning and reporting ordered.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Pruning Orders, Compensation, Damage to Property
Property Law Environmental Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Pruning Orders Compensation Damage to Property

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

Parties

Shahin Amjadi

Applicant

Marea Annette Smith in her capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith

First Respondent

Michael Christopher Smith in his capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith

Second Respondent

Antoinette Louise Mary Smith in her capacity as Executor & Trustee of the Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith

Third Respondent

The Estate of Patricia Margaret Susannah Smith aka Patricia Margaret Susanne Smith, by her Executors Marea Annette Smith, Michael Christopher Smith and Antoinette Louise Mary Smith

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Pt 2 Application (trees Act) / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tree caused damage to applicant's property
  2. 2 Whether further damage or injury is likely
  3. 3 Whether respondents have taken appropriate action

Ratio Decidendi

The tree has caused minor damage but not enough to justify removal or compensation; branches likely to cause further damage or injury in the near future, warranting pruning and inspection for hazardous branches; duty of care requires routine maintenance and inspection by owner; compensation and removal refused, pruning and reporting ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for removal and compensation refused; pruning and reporting ordered.

Orders

  • The application to remove the tree is refused.
  • The application for compensation is refused.