Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lister v Fraser [2018] NSWLEC 25 Hearing dates: 1 February 2018 Date of orders: 08 March 2018 Decision date: 08 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Molesworth AJ Decision: See orders at [63]
Catchwords: COSTS – tree dispute – whether fair and reasonable to order the unsuccessful applicant to pay costs – applicant’s evidence deficient despite being forewarned of the requisite standard – order for costs made Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 98
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 36
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 s 10(2)
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 rr 3.7, 3.10Cases Cited: Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 96
Burns v St Clair (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 115
Fang v Li [2017] NSWLEC 1503
Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139
Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 70
Harrison v Neuer (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 1375
Lister v Fraser [2017] NSWLEC 1707
Low v Elliott [2008] NSWLEC 111
O'Connor v Kerr (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 1542
Macdonald v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) (2000) 107 LGERA 211
Patane v Singh [2016] NSWLEC 13
Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Song v Hackney (No 2) [2016] NSWLEC 155
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152Texts Cited: Category: Costs Parties: Gerry Lister (Applicant)
Richard Fraser and Manette Fraser (Respondents)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J Lazzaro (Solicitor for Applicant) – hearing
Mr L T Livingston (Applicant) – submissions
Mr Bolger (Respondents) – hearing and submissions
Goldrick Farrell Mullan (Applicant)
Fordham Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/248211 Publication restriction:
Judgment
OVERVIEW
-
The primary hearing in these proceedings occurred before Acting Commissioner Fakes on 30 November 2017, with the Acting Commissioner handing down her decision on 8 December 2017. The subject of the proceedings is a Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) growing at the rear of 15 Cultowa Road, Pymble. That property is owned by the Respondents. Abutting that property to the rear is 14 Cross Street, Pymble, the property owned by the Applicant.
-
Before the Acting Commissioner, Gerry Lister, the Applicant, contended that the roots of the Blackbutt growing at the rear of his neighbours’ property had damaged his garage. The Applicant’s neighbours, Richard and Manette Fraser, are the Respondents in the proceedings. The Applicant, pursuant to a Class 2 Application dated 15 August 2017, applied under s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) for orders seeking, amongst other things, the removal of the tree and the payment, by the Respondents, of $35,560.00 for the rectification of the damage. I shall refer to the primary proceedings, as heard by the Acting Commissioner, as the Tree Application.
-
Apart from the damage allegedly caused by the roots of the Respondents’ Blackbutt, the Applicant was concerned that if the walls of the garage were to collapse, then such collapse could cause injury. Additionally, a large green branch was alleged to have fallen from a Eucalypt onto the roof of the…
Continue reading Lister v Fraser
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lister v Fraser [2018] NSWLEC 25
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Lister had established his ownership of the property through adverse possession, which would mean that despite not having a legal title, his continuous and open occupation of the property for a statutory period had granted him a legal title. The court also had to consider whether Lister had demonstrated a sufficient intention to possess the property as the owner, and whether Fraser's actions constituted interference with Lister's possession. The court's analysis involved examining the evidence presented by both parties regarding Lister's occupation of the property, the nature of his possession, and the consistency of his claim with the legal requirements for adverse possession.
The court found that Lister had not met the necessary legal criteria for adverse possession. It held that Lister had not demonstrated a clear and continuous possession of the property as the owner, and that his actions were not consistent with the intention required to establish ownership through adverse possession. The court also found that Fraser had not interfered with Lister's possession, as Lister had not demonstrated any lawful right to the property at the time of the alleged interference. Consequently, the court dismissed Lister's claims and refused to grant him the declaration and injunction he sought.
The court ordered that Lister pay Fraser's costs of the proceedings. The final orders of the court were detailed at [63] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [63]
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.