Tree Removal Ordered Due to Damage Caused to Neighbour’s Property
📌 In brief
The Land and Environment Court ordered the removal of a tree growing on a neighbour's property because the tree's roots were causing damage to another person's property. The court used the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 to make its decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
Under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, a tree may be ordered removed if it causes, is causing, or could cause damage to a neighbour's property.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully argued that the tree roots had caused damage to their property, leading to the tree's removal.
📚 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 consulting engineer's report indicated that the tree roots were causing damage to the tiled pergola slab and concrete path.
- The Commissioner observed that the tree was structurally poor and posed a risk of further damage.
- The lack of expansion joints in the tiled area and concrete path suggested that the damage was ongoing and could worsen.
- The tree's proximity to other structures meant that removing it would prevent potential future damage.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant's attempt to amend the application to include the cost of replacing the damaged areas was denied due to procedural unfairness.
- The consulting engineer's report was criticized for making unsubstantiated assumptions without proper investigation or excavation.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court ordered the removal of a tree growing on a neighbour's property because the tree's roots were causing damage to another person's property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a tree growing on a neighbour's property should be removed due to damage caused by its roots to another person's property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to remove the tree because it was causing damage to the applicant's property and was likely to cause further damage.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tree's roots were causing damage to the applicant's property and were likely to cause further damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to get a tree on a neighbour's property removed if they can prove that the tree's roots are causing damage to their property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included an engineer's report detailing the damage caused by the tree's roots and an inspection of the tree and damaged property.