Fifield v Sang and Wang

[2018] NSWLEC 1377

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Fifield v Sang and Wang [2018] NSWLEC 1377
Hearing dates:	18 July 2018
Date of orders:	18 July 2018
Decision date:	18 July 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Galwey AC
Decision:	The application is dismissed.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to property – blocked sewer pipe – terracotta pipes – jurisdiction must apply to a tree, not trees in general
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Hill v Dance [2007] NSWLEC 642 Knight v Simmons [2018] NSWLEC 1231 McDonnell v Harrison [2012] NSWLEC 1291 P. Baer Investments Pty Limited v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 128
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Neville Fifield (Applicant) Fei Sang (First Respondent) Tony Wang (Second Respondent)
Representation:	N Fifield, litigant in person (Applicant) F Sang, litigant in person (Respondents)
File Number(s):	102676 of 2018

Judgment

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

Background

1. A large tree of unknown species grew in the rear garden of Ms Sang’s and Mr Wang’s Cherrybrook property, approximately one metre from the common boundary shared with Mr Fifield’s property.

2. In early June 2017 Mr Fifield’s sewer pipe became blocked. He called a plumber, who came and repaired the pipe on the same day. The plumber cleared the pipe of roots and relined the pipe at a cost of $3,443 to Mr Fifield.

3. In July 2017 Mr Fifield (‘the applicant’) asked Ms Sang and Mr Wang (‘the respondents’) to remove the large tree on their property, saying its roots had blocked his sewer.

4. In October 2017 Mr Fifield asked the respondents to compensate him $3,443 for the plumber’s costs.

5. Mr Fifield subsequently asked the respondents to remove eight smaller trees in a hedge on their property, saying their roots had blocked the sewer.

6. When asked, the respondents removed the large tree and then the eight smaller trees from their property. They did not pay Mr Fifield compensation, as the builder that was undertaking renovation works to their property estimated that he could have done the works for $1,320.

7. Still later, Mr Fifield asked Ms Sang and Mr Wang to remove other trees from their property, saying it was the roots of these trees that had blocked his sewer.

8. The respondents say that the applicant appears to want all trees on their property removed, and are unsure when his requests for further tree removals will end.

The application

9. Mr Fifield has applied to the Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (‘the Trees Act’), seeking an order that the respondents pay him $3,443 in compensation for the repair works carried out to his sewer pipes.

Framework of the Trees Act

10. If I am satisfied that the tree has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause, damage to the applicant’s property (s 10(2) of the Trees Act), I have jurisdiction to…