Millar v Easby [2007] NSWLEC 850

Millar v Easby [2007] NSWLEC 850

The Court was satisfied that the two front-yard trees had caused some lifting of Mr Millar's driveway paving and that the Poinciana likely caused lifting of the paving circle near the shed, but was not satisfied that the trees damaged the brick fence or shed roof, or that leaf and debris fall warranted pruning orders. The Court lacked jurisdiction over the council nature-strip tree. The Bottlebrush and Wattle did not justify orders, while the Grass Trees posed a risk of injury. Because Mr Easby agreed to carry out the works the Court would have reason to order and there were no outstanding compensation matters, the application was dismissed noting the parties' agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed, noting the agreement between the parties.
Legal Topics
['damage to Adjoining Property From Trees' 'tree Pruning' 'root Barrier' 'compensation for Tree Damage' 'court Jurisdiction Over Council Trees']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'land and Environment'] ['damage to Adjoining Property From Trees' 'tree Pruning' 'root Barrier' 'compensation for Tree Damage' 'court Jurisdiction Over Council Trees']

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

Application Pursuant to S 7 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trees had caused, were causing, or were likely in the near future to cause damage to Mr Millar's property, or were likely to cause injury to any person, so as to enliven the Court's jurisdiction under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006." 'Whether any damage or risk was sufficiently serious to warrant Court intervention and, if so, what work should be carried out and who should pay for it.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction in relation to a tree on the Council nature strip.' 'Whether Mr Millar should receive compensation for quoted repair works and the Court application fee.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the two front-yard trees had caused some lifting of Mr Millar's driveway paving and that the Poinciana likely caused lifting of the paving circle near the shed, but was not satisfied that the trees damaged the brick fence or shed roof, or that leaf and debris fall warranted pruning orders. The Court lacked jurisdiction over the council nature-strip tree. The Bottlebrush and Wattle did not justify orders, while the Grass Trees posed a risk of injury. Because Mr Easby agreed to carry out the works the Court would have reason to order and there were no outstanding compensation matters, the application was dismissed noting the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed, noting the agreement between the parties.

Orders

  • ["Mr Easby shall install root barrier on his side of the common boundary from the front boundary to the front alignment of Mr Millar's house, to a depth of 0.6 m, at his cost, completed by 30 June 2008, with Mr Millar to be advised by written note within one week prior to the work beginning." 'Mr Easby shall repair...