Bradshaw v Roberts - [2025] NSWLEC 1425

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Bradshaw v Roberts [2025] NSWLEC 1425
Hearing dates: 11 March 2025
Date of orders: 13 June 2025
Decision date: 13 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy south of the applicant’s dwelling that overhangs the applicant’s backyard or is within 2 metres of the common boundary.
(2) The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy that overhangs the swimming pools, and pool surrounds of the two clifftop properties south of the respondent’s land.
(3) The works in Orders 1 and 2 shall be completed within 45 days of the date of these orders.
(4) The respondent shall engage and pay AQF level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances to repeat the pruning works in Orders 1 and 2 at intervals of approximately two years after the initial pruning.
(5) The applicant shall allow all reasonable access for the contractors to complete the tree works and remove all refuse from the tree from the applicant’s property, upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. Ideally, the owners of the clifftop properties to the south would provide similar access for the contractors upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. If the owners of the clifftop properties to the south do not provide such access, neither the contractors nor the respondent shall be liable for removal of pruning debris from such owners’ properties.
(6) All tree works shall comply with AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees, and Safe Work Australia, ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’, 2016.
(7) All works shall be completed during reasonable, daytime working hours.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to a ceramic pot – apprehension of further damage and injury – nuisance caused by debris from tree – both parties seek tree removal

Legislation Cited:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
NSW Climate Change (Net Zero Future) Act 2023, s 8
Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
Warringah Local Environment Plan 2011

Cases Cited:
Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292
Black v Johnson (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 513
Gardiner v Bisley [2021] NSWLEC 1176
Granger v Owners Corporation SP 18494 [2012] NSWLEC 1285
McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081
Reuben v Lace [2010] NSWLEC 1024
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592
Yin v D’Hondt [2014] NSWLEC 1040

Texts Cited:
AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees

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 Bradshaw v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Bradshaw v Roberts [2025] NSWLEC 1425
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1425
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradshaw v Roberts involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr Bradshaw, and the respondent, Ms Roberts, over the maintenance of a large tree on the boundary line of their respective properties. The issue arose from the deadwood overhanging Mr Bradshaw's backyard and the swimming pools of two clifftop properties south of Ms Roberts' land. Mr Bradshaw sought an order for Ms Roberts to prune the tree to ensure safety and prevent damage to his property and the clifftop properties. The case was heard and determined in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Roberts was required to engage qualified arborists to prune the deadwood from the tree that overhangs Mr Bradshaw's backyard and the swimming pools of the clifftop properties. The court had to consider the rights and obligations of property owners in relation to trees on boundary lines, as well as the necessity for safety measures to prevent potential damage. The court also had to determine the appropriate standard and frequency of pruning required.

In delivering its decision, the court found that Ms Roberts was indeed obligated to engage qualified arborists to prune the deadwood from the tree. The court held that the overhanging deadwood posed a risk to Mr Bradshaw's property and the clifftop properties, and therefore, it was reasonable for Mr Bradshaw to seek an order for its removal. The court emphasised the importance of safety and compliance with relevant standards in carrying out the tree works. The court further specified the qualifications required for the arborists, the frequency of pruning, and the need for compliance with safety guidelines.

The court made several orders to ensure the safe and effective maintenance of the tree. These included ordering Ms Roberts to engage qualified arborists to prune the deadwood from the tree within a specified timeframe, to repeat the pruning works at regular intervals, and to comply with relevant safety standards. The court also ordered that Mr Bradshaw allow access for the arborists to complete the tree works and remove refuse from his property, and that the owners of the clifftop properties provide similar access if possible. The works were to be carried out during reasonable daytime working hours.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy south of the applicant’s dwelling that overhangs the applicant’s backyard or is within 2 metres of the common boundary.

(2) The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy that overhangs the swimming pools, and pool surrounds of the two clifftop properties south of the respondent’s land.

(3) The works in Orders 1 and 2 shall be completed within 45 days of the date of these orders.

(4) The respondent shall engage and pay AQF level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances to repeat the pruning works in Orders 1 and 2 at intervals of approximately two years after the initial pruning.

(5) The applicant shall allow all reasonable access for the contractors to complete the tree works and remove all refuse from the tree from the applicant’s property, upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. Ideally, the owners of the clifftop properties to the south would provide similar access for the contractors upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. If the owners of the clifftop properties to the south do not provide such access, neither the contractors nor the respondent shall be liable for removal of pruning debris from such owners’ properties.

(6) All tree works shall comply with AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees, and Safe Work Australia, ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’, 2016.

(7) All works shall be completed during reasonable, daytime working hours.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Bradshaw v Roberts [2025] NSWLEC 1425
Hearing dates:	11 March 2025
Date of orders:	13 June 2025
Decision date:	13 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Douglas AC
Decision:	The Court orders that: (1) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances (the contractors), to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy south of the applicant’s dwelling that overhangs the applicant’s backyard or is within 2 metres of the common boundary. (2) The respondent shall engage and pay the contractors to prune deadwood larger than 10mm diameter at the branch collar from the area of the tree’s canopy that overhangs the swimming pools, and pool surrounds of the two clifftop properties south of the respondent’s land. (3) The works in Orders 1 and 2 shall be completed within 45 days of the date of these orders. (4) The respondent shall engage and pay AQF level 3 qualified arborists with all appropriate insurances to repeat the pruning works in Orders 1 and 2 at intervals of approximately two years after the initial pruning. (5) The applicant shall allow all reasonable access for the contractors to complete the tree works and remove all refuse from the tree from the applicant’s property, upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. Ideally, the owners of the clifftop properties to the south would provide similar access for the contractors upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ written notice from the respondent. If the owners of the clifftop properties to the south do not provide such access, neither the contractors nor the respondent shall be liable for removal of pruning debris from such owners’ properties. (6) All tree works shall comply with AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees, and Safe Work Australia, ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’, 2016. (7) All works shall be completed during reasonable, daytime working hours.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to a ceramic pot – apprehension of further damage and injury – nuisance caused by debris from tree – both parties seek tree removal
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 NSW Climate Change (Net Zero Future) Act 2023, s 8 Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Warringah Local Environment Plan 2011
Cases Cited:	Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Black v Johnson (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 513 Gardiner v Bisley [2021] NSWLEC 1176 Granger v Owners Corporation SP 18494 [2012] NSWLEC 1285 McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081 Reuben v Lace [2010] NSWLEC 1024 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Yin v D’Hondt [2014] NSWLEC 1040
Texts Cited:	AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees