Coutts v Haydon

Case

[2007] NSWLEC 863

20 December 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Coutts v Haydon [2007] NSWLEC 863
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Stephen Coutts

RESPONDENT
Paul Haydon
FILE NUMBER(S): 21029 of 2007
CORAM: Fakes AC
KEY ISSUES: Trees (Neighbours) - Neighbour Application :- Removal of a tree
LEGISLATION CITED: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
DATES OF HEARING: 20/12/2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 20 December 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr S. Coutts, litigant in person

RESPONDENT
Mr P. Haydon, litigant in person



JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      Fakes AC

      20 December 2007

      21029 of 2007 Stephen Coutts v Paul Haydon

      JUDGMENT

1. This is an application pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 made by Mr Stephen Coutts of 18B Railway Crescent Lisarow concerning a dead tree in a property owned by Mr Paul Haydon at 16 Railway Crescent Lisarow.

2. Mr Coutts is seeking the removal of the tree he contends that is poses a risk to persons and property.

3. The tree was viewed from both properties. The tree appears to have been dead for some time and the branches that remain appear to be quite degraded and are likely to continue to fail. The tree supports a termite colony. The tree overhangs the applicant’s property.

4. The respondent did not contest its removal.

5. Under s10.2 of the Act, the Court must be satisfied that the tree has caused, is causing, or could, in the near future, cause damage to property or injury to persons.

6. The Court is satisfied that this tree meets these criteria and thus the Court orders are that the application is approved and the tree is to be removed within 90 days of the date of the published orders. The work is to be performed by an AQF level 3 arborist with the appropriate insurances, The work is to be performed to the standards described in the WorkCover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry. The arborist is to be engaged and paid for by the tree owner. The respondent is to provide any necessary access for this work to proceed safely.

___________________

      J Fakes
      Acting Commissioner of the Court
      ljr

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152
Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1