Carter v Fraser [2022] NSWLEC 1149

Carter v Fraser [2022] NSWLEC 1149

The Applicant established notice and reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute, but did not satisfy s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Tree debris causing maintenance burdens did not constitute actionable damage under the Act, and there was no evidence substantiating root damage or likely damage in the near future. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction under s 7 of Pt 2 to make orders concerning the trees.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under S 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Hearing; Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tree Debris and Maintenance' 'damage to Property' 'apprehended Future Damage' 'root Damage' 'jurisdiction Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['tree Debris and Maintenance' 'damage to Property' 'apprehended Future Damage' 'root Damage' 'jurisdiction Under 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 S 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / On Site Hearing; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether debris from the Respondent's trees caused actionable damage to the Applicant's property under s 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." "Whether roots from the Respondent's trees had caused or were likely in the near future to cause damage to the Applicant's property." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for removal of the trees or compensation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant established notice and reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute, but did not satisfy s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Tree debris causing maintenance burdens did not constitute actionable damage under the Act, and there was no evidence substantiating root damage or likely damage in the near future. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction under s 7 of Pt 2 to make orders concerning the trees.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']