Coutts v Haydon

Case [2007] NSWLEC 863



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

Details
AGLC
Coutts v Haydon [2007] NSWLEC 863
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 863
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between Stephen Coutts and Paul Haydon, neighbours in Lisarow. The applicant, Mr Coutts, sought the removal of a dead tree on Mr Haydon's property, which he claimed posed a risk to persons and property. The tree was observed to be in a deteriorated state, with branches likely to continue failing, and it supported a termite colony. It also hung over Mr Coutts' property. Mr Haydon did not contest the removal of the tree.

The legal issue before the court was whether the tree met the criteria for removal under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Specifically, the court needed to be satisfied that the tree had caused, was causing, or could, in the near future, cause damage to property or injury to persons. The applicant argued that the tree fulfilled these criteria due to its condition and its overhanging position.

The court found that the tree indeed met the criteria for removal. It was satisfied that the tree had caused, was causing, or could, in the near future, cause damage to property or injury to persons. Consequently, the court approved the application and ordered the tree to be removed within 90 days of the published orders. The removal work was to be performed by a qualified arborist with appropriate insurances, adhering to the standards described in the WorkCover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry. The tree owner was responsible for engaging and paying the arborist, and for providing necessary access for the work to proceed safely.

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.