20 Nov 2009
THOMAS AND ANOR V BROOME AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-000725
- Citation
- openlaw-445b9715_92b9_4a94_8b0b_ac37d0502846.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The High Court held the District Court judge did not err in principle or approach and was entitled to find the trees caused undue obstruction and undue interference by shading; accordingly the removal order under s333 was confirmed. The cross-appeal succeeded only to the extent that the District Court judge must clarify the detailed terms of the 12 June 2009 removal orders (scope of stump removal, method, disposal and timetabling), which are remitted for clarification. No substantive error found to disturb allocation of costs at the current stage.