Beggs v Amos

[2025] NSWLEC 1670

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Beggs v Amos [2025] NSWLEC 1670

Hearing dates:

19 May 2025

Date of orders:

16 September 2025

Decision date:

16 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Nichols AC

Decision:

The Orders of the Court are:

(1) The application to remove the tree is dismissed.

Catchwords:

TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Damages from falling branches, leaves and debris in gutters – orders made

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) ss 7, 9, 10, Pt 2

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kryiakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Hinde v Anderson [2009] NSWLEC 1148

Grossman v Amaro [2012] NSWLEC 1154

McCallum v Riodan [2011] NSWLEC 1009

Zangari v Miller (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 1093

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Robert Allan Beggs (Applicant)
Ian Amos (Respondent)

Representation:

Mr R Beggs (Self represented)
Mr I Amos (Self represented)

File Number(s):

2025/93556

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgement

1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicant, Mr Beggs of 1 Doran Close Thornton, contends that over recent years the tree (noted as a grey gum) growing on the Respondent's property near the rear boundary has been shedding branches and leaves onto the Applicant’s property. The Applicant submitted evidence of small twigs and leaves that had fallen and landed on the Applicant’s property and in the gutters. The Applicant is concerned that unless the tree is removed there is a risk of tree failure causing damage to the Applicant’s property.

2. Apart from the applicant's concerns about the ongoing risk of damage to property, the applicant is also concerned that the tree may cause injury to people on his property.

3. The application is made pursuant to s 7 Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act).

4. The Respondent maintains that the tree is healthy, added a positive contribution to the environment and amenity of the property and does not wish to remove it.

5. In applications under Part 2 of the Act, the key jurisdictional tests are found in s 10(2). This section states that the Court must not make an order unless it is satisfied that the tree concerned has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause, damage to the applicant's property or is likely to cause injury to any person.

6. If any of the tests are met, the Court's power under s 9 of the Act to make any orders it thinks fit under s 9 of the Act is engaged.

7. As neither party engaged an arborist to provide independent expert evidence these observations are based on the arboricultural expertise I bring to the Court. The tree has been incorrectly identified by the Applicant as a grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata) and is correctly identified as a spotted gum (Corymbia maculata). I considered the tree to be healthy and is good condition at the time of the inspection (date of the hearing being 19 May 2025).

8. I observed the roof and gutters of the Applicant’s dwelling to have collected a minor amount of debris…