Ceeney v Rutter

[2025] NSWLEC 1175

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Ceeney v Rutter [2025] NSWLEC 1175

Hearing dates:

12 February 2025

Date of orders:

12 February 2025

Decision date:

12 February 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The application is upheld to the extent of the following orders.

(2) Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to remove, or engage and pay for a suitably experienced contractor to remove, all oleander trees along their rear boundary.

(3) Within 30 days of the date of these orders, and then annually in March thereafter, the respondents, or a suitably experienced contractor they engage at their expense, are to prune all palm trees along their rear boundary to remove all dead and dying fronds along with any developing fruit.

(4) The applicant is to allow any access required to his property on reasonable notice and at reasonable times of the day for the works in Orders (2) and (3).

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – whether trees have damaged or are likely to damage property – Pt 2A application – neighbouring hedge – whether the trees are planted so as to form a hedge

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pts 2, 2A, ss 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14A, 14B, 14E,

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Ross Douglas Ceeney (Applicant)
Gary Alan Rutter (First Respondent)
Linda Joyce Rutter (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
R Ceeney (Self-represented) (Applicant)
No appearance (First and Second Respondents)

File Number(s):

2024/395980

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: Carmel and Ross Ceeney live at their residential property in Tumbi Umbi. Behind their property, on the neighbouring property belonging to Linda and Gary Rutter, vegetation grows along the common boundary. The Ceeneys have asked the Rutters to address various issues related to the vegetation, including: debris falling onto their property, the poisonous nature of some of the plants, vermin attracted to their property by the vegetation, potential damage and injury from falling palm fronds, roots in their stormwater pipe and garden, and the vegetation’s obstruction of sunlight and views.

2. The Rutters (the respondents) have not responded to the Ceeneys’ requests. Mr Ceeney (the applicant) has applied to the Court seeking orders that will deal with these issues. His application is made pursuant to both s 7 (Pt 2) and s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act).

3. The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to observe the trees and both properties. Mr Ceeney was self-represented. The Rutters’ son, Perry Rutter, attended but was not nominated as an agent for his parents, who did not attend. The matter was heard ex parte.

The trees

4. The vegetation along the Rutters’ back boundary includes…