Britt v Doyle [2015] NSWLEC 1355
The evidence did not establish that the tree had caused significant damage to the applicant's property or that removal was required, but given the possibility of future damage from deadwood, regular pruning orders were appropriate.
- Parties
- Applicant: Wayne Britt; Respondent: Michael Doyle
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 August 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Tree Dispute (class 2) / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Application upheld in part
- Legal Topics
- Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Tree Damage, Compensation, Pruning Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wayne Britt
Applicant
Michael Doyle
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (class 2) / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause damage to the applicant's property
- 2 Whether compensation should be ordered for alleged damage
- 3 Whether orders for pruning or removal of the tree should be made
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence did not establish that the tree had caused significant damage to the applicant's property or that removal was required, but given the possibility of future damage from deadwood, regular pruning orders were appropriate.
Court Disposition
Application upheld in part
Orders
- Every two years during October, beginning October 2015, the respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF Level 3), with appropriate insurances, to prune the tree to remove all deadwood 30 mm diameter and greater from parts of the tree overhanging the applicant's property and within...
- Pruning works to be carried out in accordance with AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees and the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment