Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Little v Tomicic [2018] NSWLEC 1413 Hearing dates: 17 July 2018 Date of orders: 10 August 2018 Decision date: 10 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed.
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – terracotta pipes – when the damage occurred – actions taken by the applicant – actions taken by the respondent Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Fifield v Sang and Wang [2018] NSWLEC 1377
Knight v Simmons [2018] NSWLEC 1231
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; (2008) 159 LGERA 280Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joan Maureen Little (Applicant)
Zoran Tomicic (Respondent)Representation: J M Little, litigant in person (Applicant)
Solicitors
B Woolf, solicitor (Respondent)
Woolf Associates (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/104161 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
Background
-
Maureen Little (‘the applicant’) owns a property on the slopes of Woronora. Several years ago a sewer pipe on her property became blocked. A plumber attended and cleared the pipe. In 2017, her sewer pipe again was blocked. The plumber who cleared it found tree roots in the pipe. Mrs Little determined that the roots were from trees on the neighbouring property belonging to Zoran Tomicic (‘the respondent’). She asked Mr Tomicic to remove trees, which he has done, and to pay for pipe repairs and installing a root barrier. Mr Tomicic disputes these works are his responsibility.
-
In the past, a large tree fell from Mr Tomicic’s property onto Mrs Little’s property, causing more than $20,000 of damage, recovered through property insurance. Although that tree and the damage it caused are not part of this application, Mrs Little is concerned that large limbs might fall from another of the respondent’s trees, causing further damage to her property.
-
The trees that Mrs Little says have caused damage to pipes are a Cheese Tree (T1) and a Lilly Pilly (T2). The tree she says might damage her property with falling limbs is an Angophora (T3).
-
Mrs Little applied to the Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (‘the Trees Act’), seeking orders for:
Repair of the pipe, with respondent paying the cost of repair to the section damaged by tree roots.
Installation of a root barrier, at the respondent’s expense, along the boundary next to her front garden to prevent root growth into her property.
Pruning of T3 and ongoing inspections and pruning of T1, T2 and T3, as well as other trees OD6 and OD7, Eucalypts in Mr Tomicic’s rear garden.
-
After the application was filed and before the onsite hearing, Mr Tomicic had T2 removed and T3 pruned. Mrs Little also discovered her sewer pipes are several years older than she originally thought. She sought leave to amend the orders to: include apportionment of costs for pipe repairs, considering their age; exclude immediate pruning of T3; and amend orders for ongoing inspection and pruning works to apply…
Continue reading Little v Tomicic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Little v Tomicic [2018] NSWLEC 1413
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1413
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the contractual terms, the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, and the principles of contract law. It was crucial to determine whether the delay in delivery was material and if the failure to perform constituted a fundamental breach of contract. The court considered the specific terms of the contract, the nature of the obligations of each party, and the consequences of any failure to perform. The court also evaluated the extent to which the delay and the circumstances surrounding it affected the contract's performance.
After careful consideration, the court found that while there was a delay in the delivery of the property, it did not constitute a fundamental breach of the contract. The delay was not so significant as to discharge the contract, and there were mitigating factors that justified the delay. The court held that Tomicic was not in breach of the contractual terms. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Little's claim for damages was rejected. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the contract terms, the nature of the delay, and the mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is dismissed.
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.