Land and Environment Court Orders Tree Removal Due to Property Damage

The Land and Environment Court ordered the removal of trees causing damage to a neighbour's property, but denied compensation, finding that the damage was foreseeable at the time of purchase.

Land and [ADDRESS] South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: [NAME] 4834 v [NAME]; [NAME] 4834 v [NAME] [2012] NSWLEC 1199 Hearing dates: 10 May 2012 and 11 July 2012 Decision date: 11 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: [NAME] Decision: (1)The application is upheld in part. (2)Within 90 days of the date of these orders [NAME] is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), having all appropriate insurance, to remove the Norfolk Island Hibiscus to no more than 300 mm above ground level. The work is to be carried out in accordance with the [NAME] of [NAME]. (3)The applicant is to provide all access necessary for the works in (2) during reasonable hours of the day, given reasonable notice, and may supervise such access. (4)The applicant is to serve, no later than 2 August 2012, a copy of these orders on the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah. (5)Within 90 days of the date of these orders [NAME] is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), having all appropriate insurance, to remove the Camphor Laurel to no more than 300 mm above ground level. The work is to be carried out in accordance with the [NAME] of [NAME]. (6)[NAME] is to provide the applicant and the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah, with at least 3 working days' notice of the works in (5) and the timing of those works. (7)The applicant and the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah, are to provide all access necessary for the works in (5) during reasonable hours of the day, and may supervise such access. (8) The exhibits are retained. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS): damage to property; application upheld in part; tree removal ordered; compensation dismissed. Cases Cited: Kristeller v Matis [2012] NSWLEC 1027 [NAME] 4834 v [NAME]; [NAME] 4834 v [NAME] [2012] NSWLEC 1159 Category: Principal judgment Parties: [NAME] 4834 (Applicant both matters)

[NAME] (20070 of 2012) (Respondents) [NAME] (20071 of 2012) Representation: [NAME] [[NAME]] (Applicant both matters) (20070 of 2012) [NAME] (Respondent in person) (20071 of 2012) [NAME] (Respondent in person) File Number(s): 20070 and 20071 of 2012

EXTEMPORE Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Relevant background 1ACTING COMMISSIONER: These proceedings incorporate two applications made by a [NAME] against two separate respondents, each of whom owns neighbouring property, each with a tree on their respective property. [NAME] has a Norfolk Island Hibiscus on his land and [NAME] a Camphor Laurel on hers. Both matters were initially heard at an onsite hearing on 10 May 2012, when I found that that both trees have contributed to damage of the applicant's garage walls and that removal of both trees is required to prevent future damage. The interim judgment ([NAME] 4834 v [NAME]; [NAME] 4834 v [NAME] [2012] NSWLEC 1159) flagged that removal would be at the respondents' expense and that there would be no orders for compensation. 2The Camphor Laurel's canopy spreads extensively above two other properties whose [NAME] were not parties in the proceedings, and its stem appears to be located partly on one of those properties. I declined to make final orders without those property [NAME] being provided the opportunity to be heard regarding the tree, regarding any orders for interference with the tree, and regarding property access should orders be made for interference with the tree. Directions were handed down for the applicant to serve relevant documents on the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah.

Further submissions 3I am now satisfied that both of the additional property [NAME] have been served with relevant documents and have chosen not to make any submissions regarding the tree or access and have chosen not to attend the resumed hearing. Consequently tree removal will be ordered and further orders will be made providing for access to the applicant's property and to the two additional properties. 4Prior to the resumed hearing [NAME] of [NAME], for [NAME], sent further submissions to the Court regarding apportionment of the cost of tree removal. It was made clear at the initial onsite hearing that the parties had been provided with every opportunity to make submissions on all relevant matters and that the resumed hearing would only be to provide the two additional property [NAME] with an opportunity to be heard. The applicants did not provide any additional correspondence. Consequently I did not see a need to make further consideration of later submissions. This judgment provides the opportunity to clarify the earlier findings. [ADDRESS] has previously considered a respondent's limited time of property ownership when apportioning compensation, for instance in Kristeller v Matis [2012] NSWLEC 1027. Such consideration is often made when compensation is being ordered for damage that occurred partially or principally before the respondent owned the tree. In both matters before me I have considered the limited period of the respondents' ownership, along with other issues discussed in the earlier judgment, and dismissed the application for compensation. As explained in that earlier judgment, removal of both trees is being ordered not because they have caused damage, but to prevent them causing damage in future. Both respondents bought their properties with the trees in their current condition and current situation. The likelihood of the trees causing future damage existed when they bought their respective properties. It is unfortunate that they have found themselves with this burden, which is one that may have been difficult to foresee. While they may perceive unfairness in having to pay for the trees' removal, it would be more unfair, in my mind, to expect the applicant to contribute to the cost of removing the respondents' trees. [NAME] asked that, as he is going abroad shortly, he be given 90 days to complete tree removal. [NAME], for the applicant, was agreeable to this timeframe.

Orders 6As a consequence of the above, the orders of the Court are: (1)The application is upheld in part. (2)Within 90 days of the date of these orders [NAME] is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), having all appropriate insurance, to remove the Norfolk Island Hibiscus to no more than 300 mm above ground level. The work is to be carried out in accordance with the [NAME] of [NAME]. (3)The applicant is to provide all access necessary for the works in (2) during reasonable hours of the day, given reasonable notice, and may supervise such access. (4)The applicant is to serve, no later than 2 August 2012, a copy of these orders on the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah. (5)Within 90 days of the date of these orders [NAME] is to engage a suitably qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 3), having all appropriate insurance, to remove the Camphor Laurel to no more than 300 mm above ground level. The work is to be carried out in accordance with the [NAME] of [NAME]. (6)[NAME] is to provide the applicant and the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah, with at least 3 working days' notice of the works in (5) and the timing of those works. (7)The applicant and the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Allawah, are to provide all access necessary for the works in (5) during reasonable hours of the day, and may supervise such access. (8)The exhibits are retained. [NAME] Commissioner of the Court

********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 July 2012