Tree Causing Damage to Neighbour's Property Must Be Removed
📌 In brief
The Land and Environment Court decided to remove a tree and fix the damage it caused to a neighbour's property. The court ruled that the tree's roots had caused significant damage, including tripping hazards and unseen damage to the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tree causing damage to a neighbour's property must be removed if the damage is real and ongoing.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tree roots have caused actual damage to the paving and concrete slab.
- The applicant provided evidence of a large woody root causing displacement.
- The court recognized the need to remove the root to prevent further damage.
- The tree's location near the dividing fence justified the removal order.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court did not order further investigations into possible unseen damage.
- The applicant's request for a root barrier to prevent future damage was denied.
- The court did not grant compensation for the costs of bringing the application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tree whose roots were causing damage to a neighbour's property, including tripping hazards and unseen damage.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tree must be removed because its roots were causing real and ongoing damage to the neighbour's property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 was applied, specifically sections 7 and 10(2).
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tree's roots were causing real and ongoing damage to the neighbour's property, thus satisfying the jurisdictional test under the Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, ordering the removal of the tree and rectification of the damage.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can seek relief under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 if their neighbour's tree is causing real and ongoing damage to their property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included images of the damage, site inspections confirming the displacement of paving and concrete slabs, and excavation revealing the presence of a large woody root causing the damage.