Ford v Steinmetz - [2025] NSWLEC 1385

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ford v Steinmetz [2025] NSWLEC 1385
Hearing dates: 10 February 2025
Date of orders: 10 February 2025
Decision date: 10 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – likelihood of future damage claimed – jurisdiction does not apply to risk of injury from undertaking pruning – application refused

Legislation Cited:
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Pt 2A, s 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F, 14G, 14H, 14I

Cases Cited:
Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292
Moore v Tebbutt [2025] NSWLEC 1360
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Texts Cited:
Lake Macquarie City Council, Tree pruning and removal assessment tool

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gordon Leslie Ford (Applicant)
Vicky May Steinmetz (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
G Ford (Self-represented) (Applicant)
V Steinmetz (Self-represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/448824
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background

COMMISSIONER: Vicky May Steinmetz (the respondent) has a Lilly Pilly hedge growing along a common back boundary shared with her neighbour, Gordon Leslie Ford (the applicant). The parties’ properties are in Mount Hutton in the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA) and Mr Ford’s land is located roughly south of Ms Steinmetz’s property. The shared boundary is about 11.5m long and Mr Ford also shares a common boundary about 5.5m long with the respondent’s west side neighbour.
The shared fence was about 1.8m high and Mr Ford’s property was about 0.4m lower than Ms Steinmetz’s land. Mr Ford’s back yard was fairly wide but shallow and a rectangular metal awning was covering a deck at the rear of his two-storey dwelling. The shared fence was at an angle, rather than parallel to Mr Ford’s dwelling. Near the trees, the fence was about 1-1.5m from the northeastern corner of the awning and about 2-2.5m away at the awning’s northwestern corner. The hedge was located at the western end of the common boundary. It was about 4-5m long and there was a similar Lilly Pilly hedge along the fence between the respondent and her west side neighbour.
Mr Ford claimed the trees had been growing above the fence for the previous two years, which required him to prune them. Prior to this, they had been maintained by the respondent. Photographs in Mr Ford’s Tree Dispute Claim Details (Form H) showed the trees were healthy and had reached around 3.5-4.5m tall with foliage overhanging the back yard of Ms Steinmetz’s western side neighbour by 1-2m. Mr Ford claimed the trees were 3m higher than the fence.
During 2024, while Ms Steinmetz was away for extended periods, the property was occupied by Mr Berg, her partner. Ms Steinmetz and Mr Berg valued shade provided by the trees and privacy screening from oversight through Mr Ford’s upstairs window.
Included…

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 Ford v Steinmetz

Details

AGLC: Ford v Steinmetz [2025] NSWLEC 1385
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1385
Decision Date: 10 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ford v Steinmetz was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue was the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached between the parties, where the defendant, Steinmetz, was to pay the plaintiff, Ford, a sum of money. Steinmetz claimed that the agreement was void due to coercion and misrepresentation, while Ford sought enforcement of the settlement terms.

The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement agreement was indeed void and, if not, whether it was enforceable. The judge examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement and the validity of the claims of coercion and misrepresentation. The court considered whether the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient basis to invalidate the settlement, or if the plaintiff's claim for enforcement was valid.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the defendant's claims of coercion or misrepresentation. The court held that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, and that there was no basis to invalidate it. Consequently, the court ruled against the defendant's application to set aside the agreement. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of contract law, focusing on the intention of the parties and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.

The court ordered that the application to set aside the settlement agreement was refused, and that the terms of the agreement would be enforced. This decision reinforces the importance of the integrity of settlement agreements in commercial disputes and the high threshold required to successfully challenge their validity.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The application is refused.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ford v Steinmetz [2025] NSWLEC 1385
Hearing dates:	10 February 2025
Date of orders:	10 February 2025
Decision date:	10 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Douglas AC
Decision:	The Court orders that: (1) The application is refused.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – likelihood of future damage claimed – jurisdiction does not apply to risk of injury from undertaking pruning – application refused
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Pt 2A, s 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F, 14G, 14H, 14I
Cases Cited:	Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Moore v Tebbutt [2025] NSWLEC 1360 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592
Texts Cited:	Lake Macquarie City Council, Tree pruning and removal assessment tool
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Gordon Leslie Ford (Applicant) Vicky May Steinmetz (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: G Ford (Self-represented) (Applicant) V Steinmetz (Self-represented) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/448824
Publication restriction:	Nil