Clarkson v Buda

Case [2010] NSWLEC 1159



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Clarkson v Buda [2010] NSWLEC 1159
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Mr T Clarkson

RESPONDENT
Mr J Buda
FILE NUMBER(S): 20095 of 2010
CORAM: Fakes C
KEY ISSUES: TREES (NEIGHBOURS) :- Damage to property
Injury to persons
LEGISLATION CITED: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
DATES OF HEARING: 25/06/10
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

25 June 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 25 June 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr T Clarkson [litigant in person]

RESPONDENT
Mr J Buda [litigant in person]


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Fakes C

      25 June 2010

      20095 of 2010 Clarkson v Buda

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

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an application pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by the owner of a property in Austral Avenue Westmead against the owner of tree growing on an adjoining property.

2 The applicant is seeking the removal of the tree as he contends that the tree has caused damage to his property and poses a risk of injury to people. He is also concerned about future damage to his property.

3 The damage said to be caused by the tree is the lifting and cracking of a driveway/pathway and cracking of a brick patio and steps at the front of the applicant’s property by roots from the tree. The future damage is the potential for the roots to block the sewer and to damage the foundations.

4 The injury is the risk to elderly and less mobile occupants of the house of tripping on the cracked and lifted pavement/ driveway. The applicant contends that a member of his family who relies on a walking frame tripped on a section of the cracked pavement. The fall necessitated hospitalisation.

5 The applicant is seeking compensation of a sum of $500 for the replacement of the section of the driveway/ pathway said to have been damaged by the roots.

6 The tree is a mature Camphor Laurel growing in the front garden of the respondent’s property.

7 By way of background, the respondent is in the process of lodging a development application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a dual occupancy on his property. The DA includes the removal of the tree. However, this is an entirely separate matter to the Court’s jurisdiction under the Trees Act.

8 Although the applicant approached the respondent’s managing agent in April 2008 about the problems of the roots and the damage to the driveway, the lack of response necessitated the applicant to undertake the replacement of the damaged path/ driveway to avoid future injury. To prove the original condition of the concrete, the applicant provided photographic evidence. Other photographs clearly show the presence of large roots beneath the concrete driveway. The sections of roots removed from the below the old pavement were inspected at the on-site hearing.

9 At the hearing, I viewed a section of root that the applicant had exposed near another section of concrete driveway some distance from the section he had previously replaced. The root was clearly from the camphor laurel. The applicant is concerned that this root may cause damage to the sewer.

10 The respondent does not dispute that the roots from the Camphor Laurel caused the damage to the path/driveway and does not dispute the claim for compensation.

11 Under s 10(2) of the Act, 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.

12 It is clear that the roots from the tree have caused damage to the applicant’s property and are likely in the near future to cause further damage. The nature of the damage is such that it is likely to have contributed to the injury sustained by one of the occupants of the house. Therefore as several of the tests under s10(2) are satisfied, the jurisdiction is enlivened and the Court may make an order.

13 Section 9 of the Act empowers the Court to make any order it sees fit to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property or injury to persons. The order sought by the applicant is the removal of the tree. In this matter, the damage is caused by root growth and orders will be made to limit any future damage that may be caused by the roots of this tree to the applicant’s property. As no above ground parts of this tree as yet pose a risk of damage or injury the removal of the tree will be not ordered under the jurisdiction of the Trees Act.

14 Therefore as a result of the forgoing, the Orders of the Court are:

          1. The application to remove the tree is dismissed.
          2. The respondent is to engage and pay for an appropriate contractor to install a root control barrier for the full length of the applicant’s driveway. The root barrier is to be installed between the dividing fence and the concrete driveway strip on the far eastern side of the applicant’s property. The root barrier is to be installed to a minimum depth of 800 mm or deeper should any root of 10 mm in diameter be encountered and must be brought to the top edge of the concrete driveway in such a way as to limit any over-growing of the barrier. The top edge of the barrier must not create a trip hazard. The contractor is to make good any damage to the surface of the soil and to the concrete driveway should any damage occur during the installation of the root barrier.
          3. The works are to be completed within 90 days of the date of these orders.
          4. The applicant is to provide all reasonable access for the gaining of quotes and for the carrying out of the works.
          5. The respondent is to give the applicant at least 2 working days notice of the need for such access.
          6. Should the tree be removed within these 90 days, orders 2-5 will expire.
          7. The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $500 for the replacement of the damaged path/driveway within 30 days of the date of these orders.

________________________________



Details
AGLC
Clarkson v Buda [2010] NSWLEC 1159
Case
[2010] NSWLEC 1159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Mr. T Clarkson filed an application against Mr. J Buda concerning damage caused by a tree on Buda’s property. The applicant alleges that the roots of a Camphor Laurel tree growing on the respondent’s property have caused damage to his driveway and patio, as well as posing a risk of injury to persons, particularly the elderly and less mobile residents of his home. Clarkson seeks the removal of the tree and compensation for the damage to his property. The respondent, while not contesting the damage caused by the tree, argues that the court’s jurisdiction under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 does not extend to ordering the removal of the tree.

The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to order the removal of the tree under the Act. This hinged on whether the tree had caused, was causing, or was likely to cause damage to property or injury to persons. The applicant provided photographic evidence and had replaced the damaged driveway, proving that the roots had caused significant damage. Although the respondent does not dispute the damage caused by the tree, the question remained whether the court could order the removal of the tree under the Act.

The court found that the roots had caused damage to the applicant’s property and were likely to cause further damage, satisfying the criteria under s 10(2) of the Act. However, since the above-ground parts of the tree did not pose a risk of damage or injury, the court decided that it was not appropriate to order the removal of the tree. Instead, the court ordered the installation of a root control barrier to prevent further damage, and the respondent was directed to pay compensation to the applicant for the damage already caused. The court concluded that the orders were necessary to prevent future damage while not requiring the removal of the tree itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.