Fisher v Corley - [2025] QCAT 141

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Fisher v Corley & Anor [2025] QCAT 141

PARTIES:

DARYL LESLIE FISHER

(applicant)

v

JULIET ROSEMARY CORLEY

(respondent)

BARRIE EDWARD OVERTON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR072-23

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman

ORDERS:

1.     The respondents’ names are amended on the Tribunal record to Barrie Edward Overton and Juliet Rosemary Corley.

2.     The application for miscellaneous matters filed by the applicant on 14 June 2024 is dismissed.

3.     The respondents are to prune the following trees bordering the applicant’s property as deemed appropriate pursuant to good arboriculture practice:

(a)     Each year, no later than 30 June, the Hibiscus Rose Flake is to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line.

(b)     Each year, no later than 30 June, the Phyllanthus cuscutiflorus stems and branches impacting the boundary fence are to be cut back to the boundary fence line.

(c)     No later than 30 June 2025, branches of the Eucalyptus leptophleba overhanging the applicant’s property are to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line.

(d)     No later than 30 June 2025, one branch of the Glochidion which protrudes over the applicant’s land is to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line or removed, according to the recommendation of the arborist as to what action best supports the long term health of the tree.

4.     Pruning is to comply with the following conditions:

(a)     All works are to be carried out by a properly insured and suitably qualified arboricultural contractor who must adhere to the guidelines set out in the Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS4373-2007).

(b)     The work is to be undertaken at the cost of the respondents.

(c)     Any contractor engaged by the respondents to perform the work is entitled to enter the applicant’s land for the purpose of assessing and performing work necessary to comply with this decision subject to seven days written notice being given to the applicant.

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

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – TREES – DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS – whether leaf litter and other debris causing substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land or property – whether overhanging branches causing substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land or property

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees Act 2011 (Qld), s 3, s 46, s 48, s 52, s 61, s 66, s 71, s 72, s 73, s 75

Finch v Grahle [2017] QCAT 80

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The parties are neighbours. As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the Tribunal has the respondents previously recorded as “Barry Edward Overton” and “Juliet Corley”. A titles search reveals that the property is registered to…

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 Fisher v Corley

Details

AGLC: Fisher v Corley [2025] QCAT 141
Case: [2025] QCAT 141
Decision Date: 7 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fisher v Corley, the primary concern was the interference caused by leaf litter and overhanging branches from trees on the respondent's property that bordered the applicant's land. This dispute was brought before the tribunal to adjudicate on the interference's reasonableness and its impact on the applicant's property use and enjoyment. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the respondents were required to prune the trees to alleviate the interference.

The legal issues that required resolution were whether the leaf litter and overhanging branches constituted substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with the applicant's land. This required an examination of the extent to which the trees affected the applicant's ability to use and enjoy their property. The tribunal also had to consider the appropriate measures for the respondents to undertake to mitigate any unreasonable interference and whether these measures complied with arboricultural best practices.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the applicable laws, the tribunal found that the leaf litter and overhanging branches did cause substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with the applicant's property. The tribunal ordered specific pruning actions to be taken by the respondents to address the interference, ensuring that these actions were in accordance with good arboricultural practice. The tribunal emphasised that these measures were necessary to restore the applicant's ability to enjoy their property without undue interference from the neighbouring trees. The tribunal also mandated that the pruning be carried out by a qualified arborist and that the costs be borne by the respondents.

The tribunal further ordered that the pruning works must adhere to the Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS4373-2007) and that the arborist could access the applicant's land for the necessary assessments and work, subject to appropriate notice. The orders were to remain in effect for a period of ten years, providing a framework for the ongoing management of the trees to prevent future interference.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents’ names are amended on the Tribunal record to Barrie Edward Overton and Juliet Rosemary Corley.

2. The application for miscellaneous matters filed by the applicant on 14 June 2024 is dismissed.

3. The respondents are to prune the following trees bordering the applicant’s property as deemed appropriate pursuant to good arboriculture practice:

(a) Each year, no later than 30 June, the Hibiscus Rose Flake is to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line.

(b) Each year, no later than 30 June, the Phyllanthus cuscutiflorus stems and branches impacting the boundary fence are to be cut back to the boundary fence line.

(c) No later than 30 June 2025, branches of the Eucalyptus leptophleba overhanging the applicant’s property are to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line.

(d) No later than 30 June 2025, one branch of the Glochidion which protrudes over the applicant’s land is to be trimmed back to the boundary fence line or removed, according to the recommendation of the arborist as to what action best supports the long term health of the tree.

4. Pruning is to comply with the following conditions:

(a) All works are to be carried out by a properly insured and suitably qualified arboricultural contractor who must adhere to the guidelines set out in the Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS4373-2007).

(b) The work is to be undertaken at the cost of the respondents.

(c) Any contractor engaged by the respondents to perform the work is entitled to enter the applicant’s land for the purpose of assessing and performing work necessary to comply with this decision subject to seven days written notice being given to the applicant.

(d) 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.