Karadinovski v Weston

[2014] NSWLEC 1036

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Karadinovski v Weston & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1036
Hearing dates:	25 February 2014
Decision date:	04 March 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Fakes C
Decision:	Pruning ordered (see paragraph [38])
Catchwords:	TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Damage to property; leaves and mould
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited:	Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Black v Johnson (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 513 Freeman v Dillon [2012] NSWLEC 1057 Ghazal v Vella (No. 2) [2011] NSWLEC 1340 Hendry & anor v Olsson & anor [2010] NSWLEC 1302 Hinde v Anderson & anor [2009] NSWLEC 1148 Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) LGERA 280 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mr Z Karadinovski (Applicant) Mr W and Mrs L Weston (Respondents)
Representation:	Applicant: Mr P Nguyen (Solicitor) Respondents: Mr G Long (Solicitor) Applicant: Phu Nguyen & Associates Solicitors Respondents: Law & Planning
File Number(s):	20988 of 2013

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant contends that trees growing on the respondents' property in Oatley, have caused or may in the future cause, damage to his property.

1. The applicant has applied under s 7 Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) for orders seeking the annual pruning of the trees to the boundary line, the costs of cleaning the applicant's roof, and the costs associated with the making of the application.

1. In regards to the legal and other costs incurred by the applicant, Commissioners do not have the power to order the payment of such costs. Claims for these costs must be made by way of a Notice of Motion, which is heard by a Judge or the Registrar of the Court.

1. The damage the applicant contends has caused or may cause is described as:

• Mouldy roof;
• Gutters and downpipes blocked by leaves;
• Blocked TV dish;
• Potential to cause a fire in hot, dry and windy conditions; and
• Mould on the house and concrete paths.

1. The application concerns seven trees that are growing generally on the northern side of the respondents' property. The applicant's property is to the north.

1. The trees are numbered from west to east, from the back garden to the front garden. Trees 1, 2 and 3 are mature Acer negundo (Box Elder). These trees are close to a secondary building at the rear of the applicant's property. Branches from Trees 1 and 3 are just touching the tile roof/guttering of this building. The building and its eaves are very close to the common boundary.

1. Trees 4 and 5 are semi-mature/early mature Pyrus calleryana (Ornamental Pear). Tree 5 is closest to the south-western corner of the applicant's dwelling.

1. Trees 6 and 7 are Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) planted on the southern side of the respondents' driveway that runs beside the common side boundary. Tree 6 is the largest tree in contention. According to the respondents, this was an established tree when they purchased their property about 40 years ago. The canopy…