Gill v Chen

Case [2022] NSWLEC 1748


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gill v Chen [2022] NSWLEC 1748
Hearing dates: 19 June 2023
Date of orders: 26 September 2023
Decision date: 26 September 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) See orders at [34].

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – rhizomatous bamboo – did roots damage pool pipes – hinderance in corporal hereditaments – orders made for bamboo

Legislation Cited:

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Pt 2; s 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2007, s 4

Cases Cited:

Black v Johnson (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 513

Carter v MKTK Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLEC 1787

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Texts Cited:

Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, July 2016

Department of Primary Industries, “Rhizomatous bamboo (Phyllostachys species)”

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Russell Gill (Applicant)
Xuekui Chen (Respondent)
Representation:

R Gill (Self-represented) (Applicant)
M Jaukovic (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Monte Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/101881
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Xuekui Chen, the respondent, owns a large property in Cremorne Point which is located on a slope that runs down to Shell Cove. Ms Chen’s property, which she purchased in February 2022 and leases to tenants, is bordered on both sides and at the rear by dense bamboo, about 6 m tall.

  2. The applicant, Russell Gill, owns an adjacent neighbouring property and the parties share a rear boundary which extends from north, north-west to south, south-east. The properties are accessed from different streets and the applicant’s land is at a higher level than the respondent’s property, the rear of which had been excavated long ago to provide level ground for the dwelling.

  3. The applicant purchased his property in 2015, completed dwelling renovations 6 years ago, and rear yard landscaping 5 years ago. Mr Gill’s property includes an inground swimming pool that was installed across the back yard around 2006, beyond which at a lower level is a triangle shaped garden between the pool and the rear boundary. The triangle shaped garden is about 3.5 m wide at the northern end and it narrows almost to a tip at the far southern end.

  4. In late 2022, the applicant observed a drop in the pool water level, and upon investigating at the rear of the pool, he exposed a ruptured 50 – 75 mm PVC pipe, from which water surged. Aaron Torino, a plumber who repaired the pipe, reported bamboo roots in the pipe, which he considered had caused the pipe damage. Mr Gill said bamboo stems, which he claimed had encroached from the respondent’s property, had grown rapidly at the rear of his pool, and had also damaged a wooden staircase. Landscape gardeners removed all accessible bamboo stems and roots from the applicant’s rear garden and this required removal of almost all plants installed…

Continue reading Gill v Chen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gill v Chen [2022] NSWLEC 1748
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1748
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gill v Chen involved a dispute between the parties over a property transaction. The plaintiff, Gill, alleged that the defendant, Chen, breached their contractual obligations, resulting in financial loss. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issues before the court were whether a contract existed between the parties and, if so, whether Chen had breached that contract.

The court examined the evidence presented to determine the existence and terms of the contract. It assessed the correspondence between the parties, the nature of the transaction, and the circumstances surrounding the agreement. The court concluded that a binding contract existed, outlining specific obligations for both parties. Regarding the alleged breach, the court found that Chen had failed to meet certain contractual obligations, resulting in a breach. The court then considered the extent of the breach and the financial loss incurred by Gill.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of clear contractual terms and the need for both parties to fulfill their obligations. The court held that Chen was liable for the breach and ordered compensation for the financial loss suffered by Gill. The court's decision was based on the clear evidence of the contractual obligations and the failure to meet those obligations. The court ordered Chen to pay damages to Gill, as detailed in the final orders section of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

(1) See orders at [34].

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.