Barrett v Hulme - [2025] QCAT 382

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Barrett v Hulme & Anor [2025] QCAT 382

PARTIES:

ANTONY BARRETT

(APPLICANT)

SUSAN MARGOT BARRETT

(APPLICANT)

v

STEPHEN HULME

(RESPONDENT)

KATHERINE SIMONE HAY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR200-23

MATTER TYPE:

Neighbourhood Dispute

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member S M Burke

ORDERS:

1.   The Applicants’ application for removal of the tree the subject of the complaint is dismissed.

2.   Maintenance and monitoring of the subject tree is to be carried out on a regular basis by the Respondents in accordance with the Arborist report dated 29 September 2024.

3.   Maintenance works are to be carried out by a qualified AQF Level 3 arborist every 18 months.

4.   The cost of all maintenance of the subject tree is to be borne by the Respondents.

5.     The Respondents are to carry out the initial maintenance works on or before 30 March 2026.

CATCHWORDS:

NEIGHBOURHOOD DISPUTE – TREE DISPUTE – whether trees were causing substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference – whether the subject tree ought to be trimmed or removed

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 46, s 47, s 49, s 52, s 65, s 66, s 67, s 71, s 73, s 75

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicants, Antony Barrett and Susan Barrett, are the registered owners of a property at 7 Howie Street, Clayfield, Queensland. They have resided at the property since 2007.
The Respondents, Stephen Hulme and Katherine Hay, are the registered owners of the adjoining property at 11 Howie Street, Clayfield and are the “tree-keeper” in this application as defined in the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld).
By application dated 20 October 2023, the Applicants seek the removal of a Liquid Amber tree which is located on the eastern side of the Respondents’ property and is alleged to affect the Applicants’ enjoyment of their property (“the subject tree”).
In their application, the Applicants state that the accumulation of spikey nuts and leaves and twigs has led to the deterioration of their gutter protectors and has caused blockage of a number of drainage pipes contributing to flooding of their house in 2022.
The Applicants state that the Respondents do not object to the removal of the offending tree but refuse to pay for the removal.
The Relevant Legislation
This Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide any matter in relation to a tree in which it is alleged that, as at the date of the application to the Tribunal, land is affected by the tree.[1]
[1]Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) s 61.
The Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (“the Act”) provides, pursuant to s 52, that an owner of land on which a tree is situated (“the tree-keeper”) is responsible for:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barrett v Hulme

Details

AGLC: Barrett v Hulme [2025] QCAT 382
Case: [2025] QCAT 382
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Barrett v Hulme involved a dispute between neighbours regarding the impact of a tree on the Applicants' property. The Applicants alleged that the tree, owned by the Respondents, was causing substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their property. The case was heard by a Tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether the tree should be trimmed or removed.

The Tribunal had to decide if the tree was causing unreasonable interference with the Applicants' property and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The issue of whether the tree should be removed or pruned was central to the case. The Tribunal considered the evidence from a tree-assessor and the statements provided by both parties to make its decision.

The Tribunal concluded that while the tree was causing some interference, it was not substantial, ongoing, or unreasonable to the extent that removal was warranted. Instead, the Tribunal ordered that the tree should be pruned and maintained to ensure that it does not cause unreasonable interference with the Applicants' enjoyment of their property. The Tribunal also ordered that regular maintenance of the tree should be carried out by the Respondents and that the cost of such maintenance should be borne by the Respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicants' application for removal of the tree and ordered that maintenance and monitoring of the subject tree be carried out by the Respondents in accordance with the Arborist report dated 29 September 2024. The Tribunal further ordered that maintenance works are to be carried out by a qualified AQF Level 3 arborist every 18 months and that the Respondents are to carry out the initial maintenance works on or before 30 March 2026.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicants’ application for removal of the tree the subject of the complaint is dismissed.

2. Maintenance and monitoring of the subject tree is to be carried out on a regular basis by the Respondents in accordance with the Arborist report dated 29 September 2024.

3. Maintenance works are to be carried out by a qualified AQF Level 3 arborist every 18 months.

4. The cost of all maintenance of the subject tree is to be borne by the Respondents.

5. The Respondents are to carry out the initial maintenance works on or before 30 March 2026.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

At this stage, there is no necessity for the Tribunal to consider further the Applicants’ offer given it is not proposed that an order for removal of the tree is warranted and thus no consideration of the cost of such exercise is relevant.Conclusions Based on the evidence from the tree-assessor and the statements provided by both parties, the Tribunal concludes that the subject tree should not be removed but rather it be pruned and maintained to ensure that the subject tree does not cause unreasonable interference with the Applicants’ enjoyment of their property.Orders Based on the reasons provided above, the Tribunal determines that the following orders should be made:(a)strict maintenance of the subject tree is to be carried out by the Respondents on a regular basis;(b)maintenance works are to be carried out by a qualified AQF Level 3 arborist every 18 months to ensure that the subject trees are properly maintained;(c)the cost of all maintenance works is to be borne by the Respondents;(d)the Respondents are to carry out the initial maintenance works on or 30 March 2026.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.