Cohen v Haydon

Case [2022] NSWLEC 1564


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cohen v Haydon [2022] NSWLEC 1564
Hearing dates: 25 July 2022
Date of orders: 25 July 2022
Decision date: 25 July 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The application is granted.

(2) Within 40 days of the date of these orders, the respondent, at his expense, shall employ arborists to remove the large dead Eucalyptus tree in the north-west corner of his rear yard, to a trunk height no higher than three (3) metres above ground level, measured from immediately adjacent to the trunk base. All timber refuse from the tree shall be removed from the site.

(3) The tree removal works shall be completed by AQF level 3 qualified arborists who hold all industry appropriate insurances. The respondent, or his contracted arborists, shall supply the applicant with a copy of Certificates of Currency of said insurances at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the tree removal works.

(4) The tree removal works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

(5) The respondent shall provide the applicant with at least 72 hours written notice of the date and approximate start time of the tree removal works.

(6) Should it be required, the applicant shall allow all reasonable access for the contracted arborists, who hold all industry appropriate insurances, to remove all refuse from the tree from the applicant’s property, upon receipt of at least 72 hours written notice.

(7) Should any damage occur to the applicant’s property, the respondent and/or the respondent‘s contracted arborists shall be financially responsible to rectify any damage so caused.

(8) The tree removal works shall be undertaken during reasonable working hours.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) - apprehension of damage and injury

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 7, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:

McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081

Reuben v Lace [2010] NSWLEC 1024

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Texts Cited:

Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work 2016

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: E Cohen (Applicant)
P Haydon (Respondent)
Representation: E Cohen (Self-represented) (Applicant)
Non-appearance (Respondent)
File Number(s): 22/133944
Publication restriction: No

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 Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) by Mr Cohen, relating to a Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) (the tree) located in the rear yard of the adjacent neighbouring property.

  2. Mr Cohen (the applicant) and Mr Haydon (the respondent), share a side boundary between their properties in Lisarow, on the central coast. The applicant’s property is located on the western side of the respondent’s land, and both properties face the same narrow crescent,…

Continue reading Cohen v Haydon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cohen v Haydon [2022] NSWLEC 1564
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1564
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cohen sued Haydon in the Local Court of New South Wales over a dispute concerning a large Eucalyptus tree located in the north-west corner of Haydon's rear yard, which bordered Cohen's property. Cohen claimed that the tree posed a risk to his property and health and sought an order for its removal. Haydon opposed the application, arguing that the tree was not hazardous and that its removal was not necessary.

The court was required to determine whether the tree constituted a nuisance or hazard to Cohen's property and, if so, what orders should be made to remedy the situation. The court considered evidence from both parties, including expert opinions on the tree's condition and potential risks. The court also took into account relevant legislation, including the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

The court found that the tree did constitute a hazard to Cohen's property and ordered its removal. The court made several orders to ensure that the tree was removed safely and without causing further damage to Cohen's property. The orders included requirements for the respondent to employ qualified arborists to remove the tree, to provide notice of the removal works to Cohen, and to rectify any damage caused by the removal works. The court also ordered that the tree removal works be carried out in accordance with industry safety standards and during reasonable working hours.

The court's orders provide a clear framework for the safe and timely removal of the tree, while also protecting Cohen's property and health. The orders reflect a balanced approach to resolving the dispute, taking into account the interests of both parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The application is granted.

(2) Within 40 days of the date of these orders, the respondent, at his expense, shall employ arborists to remove the large dead Eucalyptus tree in the north-west corner of his rear yard, to a trunk height no higher than three (3) metres above ground level, measured from immediately adjacent to the trunk base. All timber refuse from the tree shall be removed from the site.

(3) The tree removal works shall be completed by AQF level 3 qualified arborists who hold all industry appropriate insurances. The respondent, or his contracted arborists, shall supply the applicant with a copy of Certificates of Currency of said insurances at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the tree removal works.

(4) The tree removal works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

(5) The respondent shall provide the applicant with at least 72 hours written notice of the date and approximate start time of the tree removal works.

(6) Should it be required, the applicant shall allow all reasonable access for the contracted arborists, who hold all industry appropriate insurances, to remove all refuse from the tree from the applicant’s property, upon receipt of at least 72 hours written notice.

(7) Should any damage occur to the applicant’s property, the respondent and/or the respondent‘s contracted arborists shall be financially responsible to rectify any damage so caused.

(8) The tree removal works shall be undertaken during reasonable 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.