Lee and Mildred v Steinhauer

Case [2023] NSWLEC 1165


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee and Mildred v Steinhauer [2023] NSWLEC 1165
Hearing dates: 17 November 2022
Date of orders: 11 April 2023
Decision date: 11 April 2023
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Sheridan AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The application for compensation is refused.

(2) The application to remove the tree is granted.

(3) The Respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with all appropriate insurances to remove the tree to ground level.

(4) The works are to be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work’. Tree removal is to be completed within 60 days of the date of these orders.

(5) All works are to be completed during normal work hours. Should access be required into the Applicants’ properties to undertake these works, or for removal of refuse, such right to access shall be granted, subject to 48 hours written notice.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) — Is the tree causing damage to the applicant’s sewer pipes – is the tree likely to cause such damage in the near future – does the tree present a genuine risk requiring mitigation – is tree removal an appropriate intervention – do benefits from tree exceed the imperative to intervene

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 56A

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pts 1, 2, ss 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Sch 7

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 29

Mildred v Steinhauer [2022] NSWLEC 88

Mildred v Steinhauer [2022] NSWLEC 1148

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Texts Cited:

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

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Albert Kin Kay Lee (First Applicant)
Giles Mildred (Second Applicant)
Erna Steinhauer (Respondent)
Representation: A Lee (Self-represented) (First Applicant)
G Mildred (Self-represented) (Second Applicant)
K Sosna (Agent) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/252521 and 2021/249664
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicants, Mr Albert Lee and Mr Giles Mildred, live in Mortdale, a suburb in the Georges River Council, Local Government Area of NSW. Mr Lee resides at 9 Cromdale Street and Mr Mildred is the owner of 7A Cromdale Street. The subject of the dispute is a mature Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood) (the tree) located near the north-western corner of the respondent’s land at 90 Seaforth Avenue, Oatley.

  2. This hearing relates to two applications before the Court, one by Mr Lee (Matter No 2022/252521) and one by Mr Mildred (Matter No 2021/249664). Both Applicants claim that the tree in their neighbour’s property presents a high risk, has damaged their sewer pipes, and roof, and that the tree which overhangs their land sheds leaves, sticks and other debris which falls or blows onto their roofs, gutters, and other surfaces, creating an unreasonable and costly maintenance burden.

Background to the Appeal

  1. The application by Mr Mildred was…

Continue reading Lee and Mildred v Steinhauer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lee and Mildred v Steinhauer [2023] NSWLEC 1165
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 1165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lee and Mildred, the plaintiffs, brought an action against Steinhauer, the defendant, in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought compensation for damage to their property caused by a tree on the defendant’s property. The plaintiffs further sought an order for the removal of the tree and an injunction to prevent further damage. The defendant denied liability for the damage and opposed the removal of the tree, arguing that it was a significant part of his property and the removal would cause him substantial hardship. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was liable for the damage to the plaintiffs' property, whether compensation was payable, and whether the tree should be removed.

The court found that the tree on the defendant’s property had caused damage to the plaintiffs' property, but that the damage was not significant enough to warrant compensation. The court also found that the tree was a hazard and a risk to the plaintiffs' safety and that it should be removed. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the tree was a significant part of his property and that its removal would cause him substantial hardship. The court found that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the tree from causing damage to the plaintiffs' property and that he was therefore liable for the damage.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application for the removal of the tree and ordered the defendant to engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist to remove the tree to ground level. The court also ordered that the works be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work’. The court further ordered that the tree removal be completed within 60 days of the date of the orders and that all works be completed during normal work hours. Should access be required into the plaintiffs' properties to undertake these works, or for removal of refuse, such right to access shall be granted, subject to 48 hours written notice. The court refused the plaintiffs' application for compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The application for compensation is refused.

(2) The application to remove the tree is granted.

(3) The Respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF level 3) with all appropriate insurances to remove the tree to ground level.

(4) The works are to be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work’. Tree removal is to be completed within 60 days of the date of these orders.

(5) All works are to be completed during normal work hours. Should access be required into the Applicants’ properties to undertake these works, or for removal of refuse, such right to access shall be granted, subject to 48 hours written notice.

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.