Coleman v Tripodi - [2025] NSWLEC 1292

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coleman v Tripodi [2025] NSWLEC 1292
Hearing dates: 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 16 April 2025
Decision date: 16 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Galwey AC
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The application is granted only to the extent of the following orders.
(2) The respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably insured and qualified (minimum AQF level 3) arborist to prune the tree within 60 days of the date of these orders to remove the dead central stem and its branches (photo at [14] in judgment).
(3) The works in Order (2) must be done in accordance with AS 4373 ‘Pruning of amenity trees’ and the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’.
(4) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (2).
(5) The applicant is to allow any access required for completion of the works in Order (2) during reasonable hours of the day.
(6) Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage a suitably experienced fencing contractor to repair or replace fencing panels so that the dividing fence is fit for purpose, matches as closely as possible the current fence in colour and style, is straight and sturdy and aligned along the boundary, with at least 100 mm clearance between all parts of the fence and all parts of the tree but with no gap large enough for a dog to pass through. The tree is not to be damaged in any way during these fencing works.
(7) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (6).
(8) The applicant is to allow all access required for completion of the works in Order (6) during reasonable hours of the day.
(9) The exhibits are retained.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – neighbouring tree damaging boundary fence – whether tree removal is required – orders for tree pruning and fencing works

Legislation Cited:
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 6, 7, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bernadette Coleman (Applicant)
Liliana Tripodi (First Respondent)
Dimitrios Terzis (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
B Coleman (Self-represented) (Applicant)
L Tripodi (Self-represented) (First Respondent)
D Terzis (Self-represented) (Second Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/49988
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background

COMMISSIONER: A mature gum tree on the Alfords Point property belonging to Liliana Tripodi and Dimitrios Terzis (the respondents) grows against the common boundary fence shared with their neighbour Bernadette Coleman (the applicant). The trees’ stem is pushing against panels of the Colourbond fence and its roots are lifting the fence. Ms Coleman wants the tree removed to prevent further damage and she wants the fence repaired. Ms Tripodi and…

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 Coleman v Tripodi

Details

AGLC: Coleman v Tripodi [2025] NSWLEC 1292
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1292
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Coleman v Tripodi, the applicants, Coleman, sought relief from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the maintenance and pruning of a tree located on the boundary between their property and the respondents', Tripodi. The applicants contended that the respondents had failed to maintain the tree properly, causing it to pose a hazard to the applicants' property and potentially endangering their safety. The respondents, in turn, argued that they had acted reasonably in maintaining the tree and denied any liability for the applicants' claims.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had breached any obligations under the relevant covenants, laws, or common law principles regarding the maintenance of trees on a property boundary. The key issues included whether the respondents' failure to prune the tree and repair the boundary fence constituted a nuisance or a breach of any applicable laws, and if the applicants were entitled to any specific relief to address these issues.

The court found that the respondents had indeed failed to adequately maintain the tree, which had resulted in a hazardous condition. The tree's central stem was dead, and its branches posed a risk to the applicants' property. Furthermore, the boundary fence was in disrepair, failing to meet the required standards for safety and aesthetics. The court held that the respondents' actions constituted a nuisance and a breach of their obligations under the relevant laws and common law principles. Consequently, the court granted the applicants' application for relief to a limited extent. The respondents were ordered to engage a qualified arborist to prune the tree within 60 days and a suitably experienced fencing contractor to repair or replace the boundary fence within 90 days. The court also specified that the works must be done in accordance with relevant industry standards and safety guidelines.

The court's orders provided specific directions for the respondents to undertake the necessary works to address the issues raised by the applicants. These included detailed requirements for the pruning of the tree, the repair or replacement of the boundary fence, and the provision of notice and access to the applicants. The court retained the exhibits for future reference.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

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

(2) The respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably insured and qualified (minimum AQF level 3) arborist to prune the tree within 60 days of the date of these orders to remove the dead central stem and its branches (photo at [14] in judgment).

(3) The works in Order (2) must be done in accordance with AS 4373 ‘Pruning of amenity trees’ and the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’.

(4) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (2).

(5) The applicant is to allow any access required for completion of the works in Order (2) during reasonable hours of the day.

(6) Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage a suitably experienced fencing contractor to repair or replace fencing panels so that the dividing fence is fit for purpose, matches as closely as possible the current fence in colour and style, is straight and sturdy and aligned along the boundary, with at least 100 mm clearance between all parts of the fence and all parts of the tree but with no gap large enough for a dog to pass through. The tree is not to be damaged in any way during these fencing works.

(7) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (6).

(8) The applicant is to allow all access required for completion of the works in Order (6) during reasonable hours of the day.

(9) The exhibits are retained.

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:	Coleman v Tripodi [2025] NSWLEC 1292
Hearing dates:	16 April 2025
Date of orders:	16 April 2025
Decision date:	16 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Galwey AC
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) The application is granted only to the extent of the following orders. (2) The respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably insured and qualified (minimum AQF level 3) arborist to prune the tree within 60 days of the date of these orders to remove the dead central stem and its branches (photo at [14] in judgment). (3) The works in Order (2) must be done in accordance with AS 4373 ‘Pruning of amenity trees’ and the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’. (4) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (2). (5) The applicant is to allow any access required for completion of the works in Order (2) during reasonable hours of the day. (6) Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage a suitably experienced fencing contractor to repair or replace fencing panels so that the dividing fence is fit for purpose, matches as closely as possible the current fence in colour and style, is straight and sturdy and aligned along the boundary, with at least 100 mm clearance between all parts of the fence and all parts of the tree but with no gap large enough for a dog to pass through. The tree is not to be damaged in any way during these fencing works. (7) The respondents are to give the applicant 7 days’ notice of the works in Order (6). (8) The applicant is to allow all access required for completion of the works in Order (6) during reasonable hours of the day. (9) The exhibits are retained.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – neighbouring tree damaging boundary fence – whether tree removal is required – orders for tree pruning and fencing works
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 6, 7, 9, 10, 12
Cases Cited:	Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Bernadette Coleman (Applicant) Liliana Tripodi (First Respondent) Dimitrios Terzis (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: B Coleman (Self-represented) (Applicant) L Tripodi (Self-represented) (First Respondent) D Terzis (Self-represented) (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/49988
Publication restriction:	Nil