Moore v Tebbutt - [2025] NSWLEC 1360

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Moore v Tebbutt [2025] NSWLEC 1360
Hearing dates: 14 May 2025
Date of orders: 14 May 2025
Decision date: 14 May 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 trees – overhanging branches – burden of pruning neighbour’s hedge – damage to the applicants’ property – injury while maintaining trees is not injury caused by the trees – application refused

Legislation Cited:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Heritage Act 1977
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 7, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:
Davidson v Bower [2024] NSWLEC 1463
Lock v Sidoti [2024] NSWLEC 1345
Hendry v Olsson [2010] NSWLEC 1302
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Moore (First Applicant)
Jane Moore (Second Applicant)
Richard Tebbutt (First Respondent)
Johanean Tebbutt (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Moore (Self-represented) (First Applicant)
J Moore (Self-represented) (Second Applicant)
Richard Tebbutt (Self-represented and Agent) (First and Second Respondents)

File Number(s): 2024/430024
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background

COMMISSIONER: Johanean and Richard Tebbutt have lilly pilly hedges growing on their Collaroy Plateau property next to the common boundary they share with their neighbours, Jane and Michael Moore. These neighbours share also a driveway, for access to their respective garages, and an acrimonious relationship. The Moores have block walls on their land along sections of the common boundary and say the trees are damaging the walls. The Moores have applied to the Court seeking orders for the Tebbutts to remove all branches of the lilly pillies that grow beyond the boundary and overhang their property, to implement a regular maintenance schedule, and to take responsibility for the trees’ ongoing management. The Tebbutts maintain their side and the tops of the lilly pilly hedges, and argue that the Moores are able to prune their side as they wish.
The final hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to inspect the trees and the Moores’ property. The Moores were self-represented; Mr Tebbutt represented both himself and Ms Tebbutt. I rely on my own arboricultural expertise and experience in making this decision.

Framework for this decision

The Moores have applied to the Court pursuant to s 7 (Pt 2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act). The orders they seek are orders the Court can make at s 9 of the Trees Act if relevant jurisdictional requirements are met, including those at s 10(2).
Relevant issues to be determined in these proceedings are:

Have the Moores made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the Tebbutts and given the required notice of the application: s 10(1)(a) of the Trees Act?

Can the Court be satisfied that the trees have caused, are causing, or are likely in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Moore v Tebbutt

Details

AGLC: Moore v Tebbutt [2025] NSWLEC 1360
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1360
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moore v Tebbutt was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing a book that contained certain allegations against the plaintiff. The nature of the dispute centred around the freedom of speech and the right to privacy, with the plaintiff arguing that the publication would cause significant harm to their reputation and personal life, while the defendant contended that the publication was in the public interest and protected by freedom of expression principles.

The court was required to determine whether the balance between the plaintiff's right to privacy and the defendant's right to freedom of speech favoured granting an injunction. This involved examining the nature of the allegations, the extent of their publication, and the potential harm to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of public interest and the role of the press in a democratic society.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the allegations, while potentially damaging to the plaintiff's reputation, were matters of public interest and did not warrant an injunction. The court emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and the public's right to be informed about matters of significant public concern. The court also noted that the plaintiff had already had an opportunity to respond to the allegations in the media and that the publication of the book would not cause irreparable harm. Consequently, the application for an injunction was refused, and the exhibits were retained for the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The application is refused.

(2) The exhibits are retained.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Moore v Tebbutt [2025] NSWLEC 1360
Hearing dates:	14 May 2025
Date of orders:	14 May 2025
Decision date:	14 May 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 trees – overhanging branches – burden of pruning neighbour’s hedge – damage to the applicants’ property – injury while maintaining trees is not injury caused by the trees – application refused
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Heritage Act 1977 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 7, 9, 10, 12
Cases Cited:	Davidson v Bower [2024] NSWLEC 1463 Lock v Sidoti [2024] NSWLEC 1345 Hendry v Olsson [2010] NSWLEC 1302 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Michael Moore (First Applicant) Jane Moore (Second Applicant) Richard Tebbutt (First Respondent) Johanean Tebbutt (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M Moore (Self-represented) (First Applicant) J Moore (Self-represented) (Second Applicant) Richard Tebbutt (Self-represented and Agent) (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s):	2024/430024
Publication restriction:	Nil