Dai v Li [2024] NSWLEC 1412

Dai v Li [2024] NSWLEC 1412

The applicant satisfied the jurisdictional requirements as there was evidence of past damage to the dwelling roof caused by the respondents’ tree, engaging the Court’s power under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. However, risk of personal injury was low, and harm stemming from leaves and minor debris did not provide a basis for orders. Removal was disproportionate; appropriate relief was selective pruning of particular branches and an order for future maintenance, with costs apportioned given both parties’ contributions to the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Zi Ai Dai; First Respondent: Ivan Li; Second Respondent: Cecily Lau
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 2 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Pruning orders granted; application for removal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trees (disputes Between Neighbours), Overhanging Tree, Damage to Property, Pruning Orders, Neighbourhood Disputes
Environmental Law Property Law Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Overhanging Tree Damage to Property Pruning Orders Neighbourhood Disputes

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zi Ai Dai

Applicant

Ivan Li

First Respondent

Cecily Lau

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 2 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Jacaranda tree on respondents' land has caused or is likely to cause damage or injury as specified under s 10(2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the order sought for removal of the tree or any other order
  3. 3 Appropriate remedy in light of discretionary factors under s 12 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant satisfied the jurisdictional requirements as there was evidence of past damage to the dwelling roof caused by the respondents’ tree, engaging the Court’s power under s 10(2)(a) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. However, risk of personal injury was low, and harm stemming from leaves and minor debris did not provide a basis for orders. Removal was disproportionate; appropriate relief was selective pruning of particular branches and an order for future maintenance, with costs apportioned given both parties’ contributions to the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Pruning orders granted; application for removal dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondents to engage and pay AQF level 3 arborists to selectively prune 3 specified live branches.
  • Works to be completed within 60 days of orders.