Grossman v Amaro [2012] NSWLEC 1154

Grossman v Amaro [2012] NSWLEC 1154

Although the Court had jurisdiction over the palms because the minor displacement of the fence and concrete blocks could be regarded as damage possibly caused by palm roots, the damage was insignificant, caused no obstruction, did not restrict use of the applicants' land, posed no risk of falling and was not an eyesore. The risk of injury from falling palm fronds was too low to warrant orders, ordinary palm debris did not justify intervention, and the shrubs did not satisfy any test in s 10(2). Accordingly, no orders for removal, pruning, repair or replacement were warranted and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
['damage to Fence and Concrete Blocks From Neighbouring Trees' 'risk of Injury From Falling Palm Fronds' 'debris From Palm Trees and Pool Maintenance' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'orders for Removal or Pruning of Trees and Shrubs']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage' 'risk of Injury'] ['damage to Fence and Concrete Blocks From Neighbouring Trees' 'risk of Injury From Falling Palm Fronds' 'debris From Palm Trees and Pool Maintenance' 'jurisdiction Under S 10(2) of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006' 'orders for Removal or Pruning of Trees and Shrubs']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the palm trees caused damage to the applicants' fence and concrete blocks sufficient to warrant orders of the Court." 'Whether the palm trees were likely to cause injury to any person from falling fronds or debris.' "Whether the Court had jurisdiction to make orders about shrubs overhanging the applicants' property." 'Whether orders should be made for removal or regular pruning of the palms, pruning of shrubs, and repair or replacement of the fence and concrete blocks.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court had jurisdiction over the palms because the minor displacement of the fence and concrete blocks could be regarded as damage possibly caused by palm roots, the damage was insignificant, caused no obstruction, did not restrict use of the applicants' land, posed no risk of falling and was not an eyesore. The risk of injury from falling palm fronds was too low to warrant orders, ordinary palm debris did not justify intervention, and the shrubs did not satisfy any test in s 10(2). Accordingly, no orders for removal, pruning, repair or replacement were warranted and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed in its entirety.']