Knight v Breen

Case [2024] QCAT 399


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Knight and Anor v Breen [2024] QCAT 399

PARTIES:

CAROL ANNE KNIGHT

(applicant)

ALLEN GRIFFITH KNIGHT
(applicant)

v

GEOFFREY FRANCIS BREEN
(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR106-20

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz AM

ORDERS:

1.     The owner of 52 Stevenson St, Barlows Hill, is to regularly prune or otherwise maintain all bamboo plants growing on the land near the common boundary with 54 Stevenson St, Barlows Hill, to a maximum height of 3.5 metres above ground level.

2.     The bamboo clumps shall be kept at least 300mm clear of the boundary fence.

3.     Pruning work on the bamboo plants is to be conducted by a person with a minimum AQF level 3 Certificate in Arboriculture or international equivalent (ISA Certified Arborist or UK qualified Arborist). In the case of a dead plant, a person with a felling ticket for chainsaw use would be suitably qualified.

4.     The pruning work is to be performed to conform to AS 4373-2007 or a corresponding horticultural standard or other horticultural industry best practice.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – neighbourhood disputes – trees – bamboo

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – TREES, VEGETATION AND HABITAT PROTECTION – DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS – tree disputes – whether debris from and the drooping of bamboo clumps amounted to substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the neighbours use and enjoyment of their land

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 46(a)(ii), s 66(2)(b)(ii), s 66(5)(f), s 74(1)(b)

Finch v Grahle [2017] QCAT 80

Boater & Anor v Kwok & Anor [2023] QCAT 144

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

  1. Ms Knight and Mr Knight (the neighbours) are the owners of a home at 54 Stevenson Street, Barlows Hill, in coastal Central Queensland. They are an elderly couple.

  2. Mr Breen (the tree-keeper) is the owner of the adjoining home at 52 Stevenson Street, Barlows Hill. He is a retired professional horticulturist with over 50 years experience, and holds an industry qualification of an advanced Certificate of Horticulture from Ryde School of Horticulture (TAFE NSW).[1]

    [1]Final submission of Mr Breen, filed on 4 October 2023, Section C.

  3. This matter concerns nine bamboo clumps growing on the tree-keeper’s land. The neighbours listed the issues caused by the bamboo in their Application for a Tree Dispute filed on 13 July 2020 as follows:

    1.  Our roof gutters are so clogged with bamboo leaves and we will need to pay someone to come in to clear them on a regular basis.

    2.  Our Ute which is kept on the concrete around that side of our house is continually clogged in the windscreen and motor with bamboo leaves. We paid $440 in July 2019 to have the leaves blown out and…

Continue reading Knight v Breen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Knight v Breen [2024] QCAT 399
Case
[2024] QCAT 399
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Knight v Breen, the court was tasked with resolving a dispute between neighbours over the maintenance of bamboo plants on a property line. The respondent, Knight, sought relief from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) due to the substantial and unreasonable interference caused by the appellant, Breen's, bamboo plants. These plants, which extended over the common boundary, were causing obstruction and aesthetic concerns for Knight. The primary issues before the court were whether the drooping of the bamboo clumps and the debris they produced constituted a substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with Knight's use and enjoyment of their land.

The court had to consider the nature of the interference and whether it was substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable. The evidence suggested that the bamboo plants had been a longstanding issue, with Knight making multiple complaints to Breen over the years. The court examined the impact of the bamboo on Knight's property, including the obstruction of views and the accumulation of debris that impeded access and created an untidy appearance. It was also noted that the bamboo had a significant height and spread, exacerbating the interference. The court assessed the reasonableness of the maintenance required, taking into account the nature of the plants and the standard practices for their care.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that the bamboo plants did indeed cause a substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with Knight's use and enjoyment of their land. The court ordered specific measures to be taken by Breen to mitigate the impact of the bamboo. These included regular pruning to a maximum height of 3.5 metres, maintaining a clearance of 300mm from the boundary fence, and employing a suitably qualified person to perform the pruning work in accordance with relevant standards. The court's decision aimed to balance the rights of both parties while addressing the ongoing issues caused by the bamboo plants.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The owner of 52 Stevenson St, Barlows Hill, is to regularly prune or otherwise maintain all bamboo plants growing on the land near the common boundary with 54 Stevenson St, Barlows Hill, to a maximum height of 3.5 metres above ground level.

2. The bamboo clumps shall be kept at least 300mm clear of the boundary fence.

3. Pruning work on the bamboo plants is to be conducted by a person with a minimum AQF level 3 Certificate in Arboriculture or international equivalent (ISA Certified Arborist or UK qualified Arborist). In the case of a dead plant, a person with a felling ticket for chainsaw use would be suitably qualified.

4. The pruning work is to be performed to conform to AS 4373-2007 or a corresponding horticultural standard or other horticultural industry best practice.

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.