Critchley v Mitchell - [2025] QCAT 346

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Critchley v Mitchell [2025] QCAT 346

PARTIES:

LOUISE MARY CRITCHLEY

(applicant)

v

CRAIG MITCHELL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR076-23

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

1.     The Tribunal Orders that Craig Mitchell is to;

(a)     Arrange for the pruning of the canopy of the single Gum Tree (Eucalyptus sp.) the subject of this Application for a tree dispute filed in the Tribunal on 19 April 2023 by Louise Mary Critchley and which Gum Tree is located in the south western corner of the property of Craig Mitchell as identified in the Application for a tree dispute and which pruning ensures that no section of the canopy extends across the alignment of the dividing fence structure separating the properties of both these parties, on or before;

        4.00 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025.

(b)     The pruning works referred to in (a) above should include the complete removal of the elongated and epicormically attached limbs and the stub from the previously failed limb as referred to in these proceedings;

(c)     Arrange an annual inspection and reporting of the Gum Tree referred to in (a) above by a suitably qualified climbing Arborist to determine the visible strength of the junctions and to perform remediation works as required;

(d)     Arrange for the removal of all tree debris from the properties of Louise Mary Critchley and Craig Mitchell after the recommended pruning is performed;

(e)     Ensure that all pruning is to be performed in compliance with the requirements of the Australian Standard 4373–2007 “Pruning of amenity trees”;

(f)      Ensure that climbing spurs and/or climbing gaffs and/or climbing irons shall not be used during pruning works;

(g)     Arrange that all aerial inspections shall be performed by a minimum Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level five (5) qualified Arborist;

(h)     The attending Arborist and/or the corporation, if any, to which the Arborist belongs shall provide proof of current Public Liability and Work Cover insurances prior to works been undertaken on site.

(i)      Craig Mitchell is to pay all costs, fees and charges relating to each of the items in (a) to (h) above inclusive.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – neighbourhood disputes – trees – where neighbour is defined by Act – where land registered under Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) – where applicant is not owner or occupier of land registered under Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) – where applicant not authorised to represent the body corporate – whether applicant is a neighbour – where applicant seeks compensation for damage to common property of the Body Corporate – where tree assessor makes report relating to the subject tree in dispute

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 94

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 61, s 62, s 66, s 72, s 73

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal…

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 Critchley v Mitchell

Details

AGLC: Critchley v Mitchell [2025] QCAT 346
Case: [2025] QCAT 346
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Critchley v Mitchell was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, Louise Mary Critchley, sought compensation for damage caused by a tree on the property of the respondent, Craig Mitchell. The tree in question, a single Gum Tree, is located on Mitchell's property, which is registered under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), and the common property of the body corporate is damaged by the tree. The applicant does not own or occupy the registered land nor is she the authorised representative of the body corporate. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether Critchley could be considered a neighbour under the Act and thus entitled to seek compensation for damage to common property.

The Tribunal considered whether Critchley qualified as a neighbour under the legislation, given her lack of ownership or occupation of the registered land. The definition of 'neighbour' in the Act was explored, and it was determined that the applicant, despite not being the owner or occupier of the registered land, could still be considered a neighbour due to the impact of the tree on her property. The Tribunal also examined the role of the tree assessor's report, which detailed the condition of the tree and the potential risks it posed. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Critchley was indeed a neighbour for the purposes of the Act and that she was entitled to seek compensation for the damage to the common property.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal issued several orders against Craig Mitchell. These included the pruning of the tree's canopy to ensure it did not extend beyond the dividing fence, the removal of specific limbs and tree debris, and the scheduling of annual inspections by a qualified arborist. Mitchell was also required to comply with specific safety and insurance standards during the pruning works and to cover all associated costs. The orders were designed to mitigate the risk posed by the tree while also addressing the applicant's concerns about the impact on her property.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal Orders that Craig Mitchell is to;

(a) Arrange for the pruning of the canopy of the single Gum Tree (Eucalyptus sp.) the subject of this Application for a tree dispute filed in the Tribunal on 19 April 2023 by Louise Mary Critchley and which Gum Tree is located in the south western corner of the property of Craig Mitchell as identified in the Application for a tree dispute and which pruning ensures that no section of the canopy extends across the alignment of the dividing fence structure separating the properties of both these parties, on or before;

4.00 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025.

(b) The pruning works referred to in (a) above should include the complete removal of the elongated and epicormically attached limbs and the stub from the previously failed limb as referred to in these proceedings;

(c) Arrange an annual inspection and reporting of the Gum Tree referred to in (a) above by a suitably qualified climbing Arborist to determine the visible strength of the junctions and to perform remediation works as required;

(d) Arrange for the removal of all tree debris from the properties of Louise Mary Critchley and Craig Mitchell after the recommended pruning is performed;

(e) Ensure that all pruning is to be performed in compliance with the requirements of the Australian Standard 4373–2007 “Pruning of amenity trees”;

(f) Ensure that climbing spurs and/or climbing gaffs and/or climbing irons shall not be used during pruning works;

(g) Arrange that all aerial inspections shall be performed by a minimum Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level five (5) qualified Arborist;

(h) The attending Arborist and/or the corporation, if any, to which the Arborist belongs shall provide proof of current Public Liability and Work Cover insurances prior to works been undertaken on site.

(i) Craig Mitchell is to pay all costs, fees and charges relating to each of the items in (a) to (h) above inclusive.

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.