Tree Causing Property Damage - Land and Environment Court Decision
📌 In brief
In this case, the claimant asked the court to remove a tree that was damaging their property. While the court did not allow the tree's removal, it did order the respondent to help cover the costs of repairing the damage.
⚖️ Legal holding
An owner of land may seek an order to remedy damage caused by a tree on adjoining land if the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely to cause damage to the owner's property.
📚 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 caused damage to the lower masonry wall.
- The tree roots caused recent separation of a section of stormwater pipe behind the masonry wall.
- A large woody root from the tree displaced the paved stairs and could cause future damage.
- The original masonry wall was not constructed as a retaining wall and was built higher than plans.
- Severing large woody roots could seriously compromise the tree's health and stability.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court decided to partially grant the claimant's request for relief, ordering the respondent to contribute to the repair of damages without removing the tree.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to order partial relief, requiring the respondent to contribute to repairs without removing the tree, based on the evidence presented regarding the extent of damage and the likelihood of future damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 and the Dividing Fences Act 1991 were applied in this case.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's evidence showing that the tree had caused and was likely to continue causing damage to their property.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially for the person who brought the case, as the court ordered the respondent to contribute to the repair of damages.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to obtain partial relief from the court, requiring the other party to contribute to the repair of damages without removing the tree.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included reports from experts, photographs, and correspondence regarding the extent of damage and the likelihood of future damage.