May v Chard

[2025] NSWLEC 1619

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

May v Chard [2025] NSWLEC 1619

Hearing dates:

24 July 2025

Date of orders:

24 July 2025

Decision date:

24 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1)   The application is refused.

(2)   The exhibits are retained.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – neighbouring tree – damage or injury – the tree has been removed – actions of the parties

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 4, 7, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:

Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Patricia Anne May (Applicant)
Peter Maxwell Chard (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
E Griffith (Solicitor) (Applicant)
P Chard (Self-represented) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Newcastle Legal & Conveyancing (Applicant)

File Number(s):

2025/164710

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

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

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: On 29 April 2025, Patricia May filed an application with the Court seeking the following orders relating to a neighbouring tree (‘the tree’):

1. The Casuarina cunninghamiana located at 14 Chartley Street and identified as T1 in this application is lopped and poisoned within 30 days of the date of these orders;

2. The applicant is to engage an appropriate contractor to grind and remove the roots in the applicant’s property;

3. The applicant is to provide to the respondent within 2 days of receipt the tax invoice issued by the contractor for the completed works specified in order 2. The respondent is to pay the contractor the full amount of the tax invoice for the completed works specified in order 2;

4. The applicant is to engage an appropriate contractor to lay fresh turf to the remediated areas of the applicant’s property;

5. The applicant is to provide to the respondent within 2 days of receipt the tax invoice issued by the contractor for the completed works specified in order 4. The respondent is to pay the contractor the full amount of the tax invoice for the completed works specified in order 4;

6. The applicant is to engage an appropriate contractor for the removal of the roots from the retaining wall and the make good of the retaining wall in the applicant’s property.

7. The applicant is to provide to the respondent within 2 days of receipt the tax invoice issued by the contractor for the completed works specified in order 6. The respondent is to pay the contractor the full amount of the tax invoice for the completed works specified in order 6.

2. The tree is on Peter Chard’s property. After receiving a copy of the application, Mr Chard removed the tree on 28 May 2025 and offered to pay for his contractor to grind roots in Ms May’s garden. Ms May declined the offer, as it dealt only with removing tree roots, not with replacing her turf.

3. The hearing took place onsite, allowing me to observe both properties. Ms Griffith represented Ms…