Norman v Cave - [2025] NSWLEC 1150

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Norman v Cave [2025] NSWLEC 1150
Hearing dates: 27 November 2024
Date of orders: 13 March 2025
Decision date: 13 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 2
Before: Douglas AC
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The respondent shall pay the applicants $1,600.00 (comprising $600.00 for 2024 insurance excess and $1,000.00 for stump grinding and paving uplift repair) by Electronic Funds Transfer, within 30 days of the date of these orders.
(2) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Quality Framework (AQF) level 3 arborists with all appropriate insurances (the arborists), to remove the tree to around ground level and poison the stump, within 60 days of the date of these orders.
(3) The respondent shall engage and pay a fencing contractor with all appropriate insurances, to install a section of fence on the common boundary, into the gap currently occupied by the tree. The materials and dimensions of the fence section shall match the materials and dimensions of the existing common boundary fence. The fence section shall be installed within 14 days of completion of the tree removal.
(4) The applicants and the respondent shall each plant a medium sized replacement tree in their backyard, clear of boundaries by at least 1m, and maintain said trees at least until they attain sufficient proportions to be deemed a prescribed tree under Council’s Development Control Plan.
(5) The tree removal works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.
(6) The applicants shall provide all reasonable access for the arborists and fencing contractor to undertake their works and to remove debris from the applicants’ property upon receipt of at least 72 hours emailed notice of the date and approximate start time of the respective works.
(7) All works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.

Catchwords:
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – tree structurally deteriorating – damage caused by branch failure – apprehension of further damage and risk of injury to persons – tree removal ordered

Legislation Cited:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Limitation Act 1969
Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:
McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081
Reuben v Lace [2010] NSWLEC 1024
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152

Texts Cited:
Standards Australia, AS 4373, Pruning of amenity trees, 2007
Inner West Development Control Plan, 2023
Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Carole Muriel Norman (First Applicant)
George Norman (Second Applicant)
Janice Cave (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
C Norman (Self-represented) (First Applicant)
G Norman (Self-represented) (Second Applicant)
J Cave (Self-represented) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/345705
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to s 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act), Carole and George Norman, the applicants, proposed the Court order removal of a…

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 Norman v Cave

Details

AGLC: Norman v Cave [2025] NSWLEC 1150
Case: [2025] NSWLEC 1150
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved Norman and Cave, where Norman sought compensation and tree removal actions following damage caused by a tree. The dispute centred around a tree located on Cave’s property, which caused damage to Norman's car and necessitated repairs to Norman's driveway. The court was tasked with determining the financial compensation owed to Norman for the car damage and driveway repair, as well as the necessary actions Cave must take to address the tree issue.

The primary legal issues before the Court were the calculation of the financial compensation owed by Cave to Norman and the specific actions required from Cave to mitigate the tree-related damages. This included determining the amount of compensation for the insurance excess and driveway repair, and outlining the steps Cave must take to remove the tree and repair the boundary fence.

The Court determined that Cave was liable for the damages caused by the tree. The Court calculated the compensation owed to Norman for the car insurance excess and driveway repair to be $1,600.00. Furthermore, the Court mandated specific actions Cave must undertake, including engaging arborists to remove the tree and poison the stump, installing a section of fence to replace the removed tree, and requiring both parties to plant and maintain replacement trees in their backyards. The Court also stipulated that all works must comply with safety guidelines and be performed during reasonable hours, with Norman providing necessary access to the contractors.

The Court's orders included the payment of $1,600.00 by Cave to Norman within 30 days, the removal of the tree by qualified arborists within 60 days, the installation of a matching fence section within 14 days of tree removal, and the planting of replacement trees by both parties. Additionally, the Court stipulated that all works must adhere to safety guidelines, be conducted during reasonable hours, and that Norman must provide access to the contractors with proper notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The respondent shall pay the applicants $1,600.00 (comprising $600.00 for 2024 insurance excess and $1,000.00 for stump grinding and paving uplift repair) by Electronic Funds Transfer, within 30 days of the date of these orders.

(2) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Quality Framework (AQF) level 3 arborists with all appropriate insurances (the arborists), to remove the tree to around ground level and poison the stump, within 60 days of the date of these orders.

(3) The respondent shall engage and pay a fencing contractor with all appropriate insurances, to install a section of fence on the common boundary, into the gap currently occupied by the tree. The materials and dimensions of the fence section shall match the materials and dimensions of the existing common boundary fence. The fence section shall be installed within 14 days of completion of the tree removal.

(4) The applicants and the respondent shall each plant a medium sized replacement tree in their backyard, clear of boundaries by at least 1m, and maintain said trees at least until they attain sufficient proportions to be deemed a prescribed tree under Council’s Development Control Plan.

(5) The tree removal works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

(6) The applicants shall provide all reasonable access for the arborists and fencing contractor to undertake their works and to remove debris from the applicants’ property upon receipt of at least 72 hours emailed notice of the date and approximate start time of the respective works.

(7) All works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.

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:	Norman v Cave [2025] NSWLEC 1150
Hearing dates:	27 November 2024
Date of orders:	13 March 2025
Decision date:	13 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Douglas AC
Decision:	The Court orders that: (1) The respondent shall pay the applicants $1,600.00 (comprising $600.00 for 2024 insurance excess and $1,000.00 for stump grinding and paving uplift repair) by Electronic Funds Transfer, within 30 days of the date of these orders. (2) The respondent shall engage and pay Australian Quality Framework (AQF) level 3 arborists with all appropriate insurances (the arborists), to remove the tree to around ground level and poison the stump, within 60 days of the date of these orders. (3) The respondent shall engage and pay a fencing contractor with all appropriate insurances, to install a section of fence on the common boundary, into the gap currently occupied by the tree. The materials and dimensions of the fence section shall match the materials and dimensions of the existing common boundary fence. The fence section shall be installed within 14 days of completion of the tree removal. (4) The applicants and the respondent shall each plant a medium sized replacement tree in their backyard, clear of boundaries by at least 1m, and maintain said trees at least until they attain sufficient proportions to be deemed a prescribed tree under Council’s Development Control Plan. (5) The tree removal works shall be completed in accordance with the Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016. (6) The applicants shall provide all reasonable access for the arborists and fencing contractor to undertake their works and to remove debris from the applicants’ property upon receipt of at least 72 hours emailed notice of the date and approximate start time of the respective works. (7) All works shall be undertaken during reasonable daytime working hours.
Catchwords:	TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – tree structurally deteriorating – damage caused by branch failure – apprehension of further damage and risk of injury to persons – tree removal ordered
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Limitation Act 1969 Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
Cases Cited:	McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081 Reuben v Lace [2010] NSWLEC 1024 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Texts Cited:	Standards Australia, AS 4373, Pruning of amenity trees, 2007 Inner West Development Control Plan, 2023 Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Carole Muriel Norman (First Applicant) George Norman (Second Applicant) Janice Cave (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: C Norman (Self-represented) (First Applicant) G Norman (Self-represented) (Second Applicant) J Cave (Self-represented) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/345705
Publication restriction:	Nil