Coombe v Engwirda - [2025] QCAT 282

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Coombe v Engwirda [2025] QCAT 282

PARTIES:

NEIL ARDEN COOMBE

(applicant)

OLIVIA JANE ARDEN COOMBE
(APPLICANT)

v

BENJAMIN DAVID ENGWIRDA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR128-22

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

On-Papers Hearing

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member D Brown

ORDERS:

1.    Within 60 days of the date of the decision, being on or before 16 September 2025, Benjamin James Engwirda must, at his own cost undertake the complete removal and stump grinding of the Waterhousea floribuna (Weeping Lilly Pilly) and the Caroyita Mitis (Clustering Fishtail Palm), identified as Trees number 2 and 3 in the Tree Assessor’s report conducted by Steven Richards dated 14 July 2023.

2.    The work in order 1 must be performed by either a tree lopper with current public liability and work cover insurances or a minimum Australian Qualifications Framework level three (3) qualified arborist with the same insurances.

3.    Benjamin James Engwirda is to arrange pruning to the Dypsis Lutescens (Golden Cane clump) that runs along the western boundary of the respondent’s property, identified as tree number 5 in the Tree Assessor’s report conducted by Steven Richards dated 14 July 2023, to remove the tallest stems to reduce the height of the tree.

4.     The work in order 3 is to occur:

(a)     initially by 16 September 2025 and thereafter on a yearly basis between 1 July and 31 August each year.

(b)     by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover; and

(c)     at Mr Engwirda’s cost.

5.   Any tree lopper or arborist engaged by Mr Engwirda shall be entitled to enter Mr and Mrs Coombe’s land to undertake the work in order 1 and 3, subject to providing 72 hours’ notice of the work being done.

6.   If the tree works detailed in Orders 1 and 3 are not completed by 17 September 2025, or by 1 September in years from 2026 to 2034 Mr and Mrs Coombe shall be entitled to have the work performed by a suitably qualified tree lopper or arborist with the appropriate public liability and work cover insurance.

7.   Any tree lopper or arborist engaged by Mr and Mrs Coombe in line with order 6 shall be entitled to enter Mr Engwirda’s land to conduct the work, subject to Mr and Mrs Coombe providing 72 hours’ notice of the work being done.

8.   If Mr and Mrs Coombe carry out the work in default of it being done by Mr Engwirda, the costs incurred by Mr and Mrs Coombe in engaging a tree lopper and/or arborist to do the work, shall be recoverable from Mr Engwirda as a debt without further notice being required to be given.

9.   These orders remain in force and effect for a period of 10 years from the date hereof.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – TREES, VEGETATION AND HABITAT PROTECTION – DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS – tree dispute – whether…

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 Coombe v Engwirda

Details

AGLC: Coombe v Engwirda [2025] QCAT 282
Case: [2025] QCAT 282
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Coombe v Engwirda, the dispute between the parties centred on the obstruction of a view from the Coombe’s property due to the growth of certain trees on Engwirda’s property. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether the trees constituted a substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with the Coombe’s use and enjoyment of their property. The court needed to decide if the view that existed at the time of the purchase was being obstructed by the trees and whether the obstruction amounted to an unreasonable interference.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert reports and testimonies, to assess the impact of the trees on the Coombe’s view. It considered the nature of the interference and whether it was substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable. The court concluded that the trees did indeed obstruct a view that existed at the time of the Coombe’s purchase, and that this interference was substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable. The court found that the trees on the Engwirda property interfered with the Coombe’s use and enjoyment of their property, fulfilling the criteria for an unreasonable interference under the relevant legislation.

Accordingly, the court ordered the removal and pruning of specific trees on the Engwirda property. The orders required the complete removal and stump grinding of two trees and the pruning of another tree to reduce its height. The court specified the qualifications and insurance requirements for the tree lopper or arborist undertaking the work and outlined the conditions under which the Coombe could engage a professional if Engwirda failed to comply with the orders. The orders were to remain in force for a period of ten years, providing a long-term solution to the dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Within 60 days of the date of the decision, being on or before 16 September 2025, Benjamin James Engwirda must, at his own cost undertake the complete removal and stump grinding of the Waterhousea floribuna (Weeping Lilly Pilly) and the Caroyita Mitis (Clustering Fishtail Palm), identified as Trees number 2 and 3 in the Tree Assessor’s report conducted by Steven Richards dated 14 July 2023.

2. The work in order 1 must be performed by either a tree lopper with current public liability and work cover insurances or a minimum Australian Qualifications Framework level three (3) qualified arborist with the same insurances.

3. Benjamin James Engwirda is to arrange pruning to the Dypsis Lutescens (Golden Cane clump) that runs along the western boundary of the respondent’s property, identified as tree number 5 in the Tree Assessor’s report conducted by Steven Richards dated 14 July 2023, to remove the tallest stems to reduce the height of the tree.

4. The work in order 3 is to occur:

(a) initially by 16 September 2025 and thereafter on a yearly basis between 1 July and 31 August each year.

(b) by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover; and

5. Any tree lopper or arborist engaged by Mr Engwirda shall be entitled to enter Mr and Mrs Coombe’s land to undertake the work in order 1 and 3, subject to providing 72 hours’ notice of the work being done.

6. If the tree works detailed in Orders 1 and 3 are not completed by 17 September 2025, or by 1 September in years from 2026 to 2034 Mr and Mrs Coombe shall be entitled to have the work performed by a suitably qualified tree lopper or arborist with the appropriate public liability and work cover insurance.

7. Any tree lopper or arborist engaged by Mr and Mrs Coombe in line with order 6 shall be entitled to enter Mr Engwirda’s land to conduct the work, subject to Mr and Mrs Coombe providing 72 hours’ notice of the work being done.

8. If Mr and Mrs Coombe carry out the work in default of it being done by Mr Engwirda, the costs incurred by Mr and Mrs Coombe in engaging a tree lopper and/or arborist to do the work, shall be recoverable from Mr Engwirda as a debt without further notice being required to be given.

9. These orders remain in force and effect for a period of 10 years from the date hereof.

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.