Cincotta v Huang & ors

The matter of Cincotta v Huang & ors came before the NSW Supreme Court, where the applicant, Cincotta, sought relief against the respondents, Huang and others, due to issues arising from a tree on the respondents’ property. The primary contentions were regarding the removal of certain branches of the tree and compensation for repairs to Cincotta’s roof and garage caused by the tree. The application for compensation for repairs to a fence was also dismissed. The court was tasked with deciding whether the respondents were liable for the damages and whether the applicant was entitled to the requested compensation and tree branch removal.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of relevant legislation and regulations concerning tree management, particularly the NSW Tree Preservation Act 2005 and AS4373:2007, the standard for tree pruning and removal. The court also needed to consider whether the respondents had a duty to mitigate the damage to the applicant’s property and whether the applicant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the damage. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate compensation for the repairs and the fair allocation of costs for tree branch removal and roof repairs.

The court found that the respondents were not liable for the damages to Cincotta’s roof and garage as they had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the damage. However, the court held that the respondents were required to remove specific branches of the tree as they constituted a nuisance and posed a risk to the applicant’s property. The court ordered the respondents to engage an appropriately qualified arborist to remove the branches, specifying the method and timeline for the work. Additionally, the court ordered the applicant to engage a licensed professional to repair the damage to his roof and garage, with the respondents to reimburse the applicant for a specified amount of the repair costs. The court’s decision also included detailed timelines for the completion of the work and the submission of invoices for reimbursement.

The orders of the court included the dismissal of the application to remove the tree and the application for compensation for the fence repairs. The court mandated the removal of specific branches by the respondents within a specified timeline, in accordance with relevant standards and regulations. Furthermore, the court directed the applicant to undertake the roof and garage repairs and set out the reimbursement process for the respondents. The court also provided clear deadlines for the completion of the works and the submission of invoices for reimbursement, with specific consequences if these deadlines were not met.