Chambers v Hall [2019] NSWLEC 1461

Chambers v Hall [2019] NSWLEC 1461

Although the roots may hamper enjoyment and use of the surface of Ms Chambers' land, there is no actionable 'damage to property' as required under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), as damage to the surface without consequent physical damage to other property is not sufficient.

Parties
Applicant: Tracy Chambers; First Respondent: Eric Hall; Second Respondent: Mary-Ann Hall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trees and Neighbours Disputes, Damage to Property, Jurisdiction Under Trees Act, Nuisance
Environmental Law Property Law Trees and Neighbours Disputes Damage to Property Jurisdiction Under Trees Act Nuisance

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Chambers

Applicant

Eric Hall

First Respondent

Mary-Ann Hall

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees are causing damage to the applicant's property as required under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Trees Act applies to the specific land in question

Ratio Decidendi

Although the roots may hamper enjoyment and use of the surface of Ms Chambers' land, there is no actionable 'damage to property' as required under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), as damage to the surface without consequent physical damage to other property is not sufficient.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application is refused.