Kunz v Palgi [2013] NSWLEC 1015

Kunz v Palgi [2013] NSWLEC 1015

The applicant did not demonstrate that roots of the respondent's Camphor Laurel caused the damage to the concrete paving. The evidence did not show that the root grew into the applicant's property or caused the cracking and lifting, and there were several other possible causes, including reactive clay, age and condition of concrete, other trees, possible downpipe leakage, and soil moisture changes after the tree was poisoned. The respondent had acted reasonably by cutting and poisoning the tree before being notified of any claim. Therefore no orders were warranted and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed
Legal Topics
['damage to Concrete Paving' 'causation by Tree Roots' 'camphor Laurel Tree' 'reactive Clay and Other Contributing Factors' 'costs']
['trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'property Damage'] ['damage to Concrete Paving' 'causation by Tree Roots' 'camphor Laurel Tree' 'reactive Clay and Other Contributing Factors' 'costs']

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 Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 / Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether roots of the respondent's Camphor Laurel tree caused damage to the applicant's concrete paving." 'Whether orders should be made for tree removal, poisoning of roots, compensation for repairs and legal costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate that roots of the respondent's Camphor Laurel caused the damage to the concrete paving. The evidence did not show that the root grew into the applicant's property or caused the cracking and lifting, and there were several other possible causes, including reactive clay, age and condition of concrete, other trees, possible downpipe leakage, and soil moisture changes after the tree was poisoned. The respondent had acted reasonably by cutting and poisoning the tree before being notified of any claim. Therefore no orders were warranted and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']