Jones and Gunnis v Onisforou [2018] NSWLEC 1451

Jones and Gunnis v Onisforou [2018] NSWLEC 1451

The tree owned by the respondent contributed to damage to the retaining wall, shortening its lifespan. Although the wall was old and poorly engineered, the respondent (as an experienced property owner) should have taken action when first notified. The costs of replacing the wall are apportioned, with 33% payable by the applicants and 67% by the respondent, and the respondent must pay $605 for plumbing repairs.

Parties
First Applicant: Melissa Jones; Second Applicant: Annette Gunnis; Respondent: Theo Onisforou
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Trees Dispute (class 2 Land and Environment Court) / Final Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Orders made for apportionment of cost for wall replacement and plumbing compensation; application otherwise dismissed as to additional claims.
Legal Topics
Damage by Trees, Neighbour Disputes, Retaining Wall
Property Law Environmental Law Damage by Trees Neighbour Disputes Retaining Wall

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melissa Jones

First Applicant

Annette Gunnis

Second Applicant

Theo Onisforou

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trees Dispute (class 2 Land and Environment Court) / Final Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's tree caused damage to the boundary retaining wall and water pipe
  2. 2 Extent to which damage is attributable to the tree versus age and construction of the wall
  3. 3 Entitlement to orders for removal, replacement, compensation and apportionment of cost

Ratio Decidendi

The tree owned by the respondent contributed to damage to the retaining wall, shortening its lifespan. Although the wall was old and poorly engineered, the respondent (as an experienced property owner) should have taken action when first notified. The costs of replacing the wall are apportioned, with 33% payable by the applicants and 67% by the respondent, and the respondent must pay $605 for plumbing repairs.

Court Disposition

Orders made for apportionment of cost for wall replacement and plumbing compensation; application otherwise dismissed as to additional claims.

Orders

  • Applicants to engage surveyor to mark boundary within 21 days; costs shared equally.
  • Respondent to pay applicants $605 plus 50% of survey cost within 28 days.