Lago v Kellock - [2024] QCAT 398

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Lago v Kellock [2024] QCAT 398

PARTIES:

WALTER PAUL LAGO

(applicant)

v

EMMA JANE KELLOCK

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

NDR075-22

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Member D Brown

ORDERS:

1.     Ms Emma Jane Kellock is to arrange remedial pruning to the Poinciana Tree to undertake natural target pruning for directional manipulation; remove and shorten the epicormic growth; and where safe to do so without compromising the health of the tree, to remove or reduce any overhanging branches.

2.     The work required by this order is to be carried out:

(a)       initially by 31 October 2024 and thereafter on a yearly basis between 1 May and 30 June each year.

(b)      by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover.

(c)       at Ms Kellock’s cost.

3.     Should it be necessary to enter Mr Walter Paul Lago’s land to undertake the work outlined in Orders 1 to 2, upon giving 5 days written notice of the intention, Ms Kellock’s elected arborist is entitled to enter Mr Lago’s land to carry out the work.

4.     If the work is not completed by 31 October 2024; or by 30 June in any subsequent year, Mr Lago may arrange to have the work at order 1 performed by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover on the basis that:

(a)       any work is completed by 30 November 2024; or

(b)      within the months of July and August in any subsequent year.

5.     Should Mr Lago be required to arrange the work stipulated above in default of it being done by Ms Kellock:

(a)       Mr Lago’s elected arborist is entitled to enter Ms Kellock’s land to carry out the work upon Mr Lago giving 5 days written notice of that intention to Ms Kellock.

(b)      the costs incurred by Mr Lago engaging an arborist to do the work are recoverable from Ms Kellock as a debt without further notice being required to be given.

6.     Mr Lago must not prune or cut any branches on the Poinciana, regardless of whether they overhang into his property, outside of the year pruning schedule set in order 4.

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

CATCHWORDS

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – TREES, VEGETATION AND HABITAT PROTECTION – DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS – tree dispute –where the tree branches overhang the boundary – whether the tree caused or was likely to cause serious injury or damage – excessive leaf litter

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 3, s 45, s 46, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 52, s 61, s 63, s 65, s 66, s 67, s 71, s 72, s 73, s 74

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld),…

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 Lago v Kellock

Details

AGLC: Lago v Kellock [2024] QCAT 398
Case: [2024] QCAT 398
Decision Date: 10 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lago v Kellock is a dispute between neighbours concerning the maintenance and management of a tree overhanging the boundary of their respective properties. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over disputes involving environmental and planning matters. The primary issue before the court was whether the tree in question, a Poinciana, caused or was likely to cause serious injury or damage to the neighbour's property, and if so, what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk.

The court had to determine whether the overhanging branches and excessive leaf litter constituted a hazard that required intervention. It considered the potential for injury or damage to Mr Lago’s property, including the risk of falling branches, as well as the impact of leaf litter on his property and garden. The court also evaluated the necessity and scope of remedial pruning to address these concerns, weighing the rights of both parties to maintain their properties against the potential risks posed by the tree.

In its decision, the court found that the Poinciana tree did indeed pose a risk of serious injury or damage to Mr Lago’s property due to its overhanging branches and excessive leaf litter. It ordered Ms Kellock to arrange for remedial pruning by a qualified arborist, specifying the exact nature of the work to be done, the timeframes for completing it, and the insurance requirements for the arborist. The court further stipulated that if Ms Kellock failed to carry out the required work, Mr Lago had the right to arrange for the work to be done at Ms Kellock’s expense. The court also imposed restrictions on Mr Lago’s ability to prune the tree outside the specified schedule and set a 10-year period during which the orders would remain in effect.

In summary, the court’s orders mandated specific remedial actions to mitigate the risks posed by the Poinciana tree, established a timeline and method for carrying out the work, and provided for enforcement and cost recovery mechanisms in case of non-compliance. These orders are designed to balance the rights of both parties while ensuring the safety and property integrity of Mr Lago.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Ms Emma Jane Kellock is to arrange remedial pruning to the Poinciana Tree to undertake natural target pruning for directional manipulation; remove and shorten the epicormic growth; and where safe to do so without compromising the health of the tree, to remove or reduce any overhanging branches.

2. The work required by this order is to be carried out:

(a) initially by 31 October 2024 and thereafter on a yearly basis between 1 May and 30 June each year.

(b) by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover.

3. Should it be necessary to enter Mr Walter Paul Lago’s land to undertake the work outlined in Orders 1 to 2, upon giving 5 days written notice of the intention, Ms Kellock’s elected arborist is entitled to enter Mr Lago’s land to carry out the work.

4. If the work is not completed by 31 October 2024; or by 30 June in any subsequent year, Mr Lago may arrange to have the work at order 1 performed by an Australian Qualified Framework level 3 (or higher) arborist with relevant public liability and work cover insurance cover on the basis that:

(a) any work is completed by 30 November 2024; or

(b) within the months of July and August in any subsequent year.

5. Should Mr Lago be required to arrange the work stipulated above in default of it being done by Ms Kellock:

(a) Mr Lago’s elected arborist is entitled to enter Ms Kellock’s land to carry out the work upon Mr Lago giving 5 days written notice of that intention to Ms Kellock.

(b) the costs incurred by Mr Lago engaging an arborist to do the work are recoverable from Ms Kellock as a debt without further notice being required to be given.

6. Mr Lago must not prune or cut any branches on the Poinciana, regardless of whether they overhang into his property, outside of the year pruning schedule set in order 4.

7. 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.