Lee v Poon

[2007] NSWLEC 613

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Lee & anor v Poon & anor [2007] NSWLEC 613
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Jae-yeon and Julie Lee RESPONDENTS Charles and Karen Poon
FILE NUMBER(S):	20621 of 2007
CORAM:	Moore C - Thyer AC
KEY ISSUES:	Trees (Neighbours) - Neighbour Application :- Consent orders
LEGISLATION CITED:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
DATES OF HEARING:	20 September 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	20 September 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANTS First applicant RESPONDENTS In person

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

MOORE C
THYER AC

20 September 2007

07/20621 Jae-yeon Lee & anor v Charles Poon & anor

JUDGMENT

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this application is the making of formal orders pursuant to s 9 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 . These orders are not reproduced as part of this decision but a copy the Court’s Orders may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders are available on the Court’s web site at

1. COMMISSIONERS: This is an application made pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act2006 (the Act).

2. The application is made by Mr and Ms Lee, residents of 69 Cliff Road, Epping concerning a tree that is located to the east of their property on 67 Cliff Road, owned by Mr and Ms Poon. The tree is a Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia).

3. We have attended the site and had the opportunity of inspecting the tree from the applicants’ side of the fence.

4. During the course of the view, the respondents agreed to remove the tree at their cost.

5. We inspected the damage which had been caused by the roots of the tree to the applicants’ carport and fence. The extent of the past damage is sufficient to enliven the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the first test posed by s 10(2)(a) of the Act.

6. We are also satisfied that it is prudent to give effect to the agreement between the parties that the tree be removed. Consent orders will be made to give effect to this agreement.

7. In doing so, we also note that, by consent, the applicants’ claim for compensation for the damage caused by the tree is to be dismissed.

Tim Moore

Commissioner of the Court

Acting Commissioner of the Court