Ridley v Gyler

[2007] NSWLEC 220

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Ridley v Gyler [2007] NSWLEC 220
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Bruce Ridley RESPONDENTS Michael & Michelle Gyler
FILE NUMBER(S):	20137 of 2007
CORAM:	Moore C - Hussey C - Fakes AC
KEY ISSUES:	Trees (Neighbours) :-
DATES OF HEARING:	20 April 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	20 April 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENTS In person

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

MOORE C
HUSSEY C
FAKES AC

20 April 2007

07/20137 Bruce Ridley v Michael & Michelle Gyler

JUDGMENT

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

The consequence of the Court’s decision in this application is the making of formal orders pursuant to s 9 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 . These formal Orders are not reproduced as part of this decision but a copy the Court’s Orders may be obtained from the Court’s registry upon payment of a fee. Details of the fee payable and process for obtaining a copy of the Orders are available on the Court’s web site at

1 THE COMMISSIONERS: This is an application pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act). The application is made by Mr Ridley who is a resident of 21A Nepean Avenue, Normanhurst (the Ridley property), concerning a tree on a property owned by Mr and Mrs Gyler (the Gyler property). The street address of the Gyler property is 16A Osborn Road, Normanhurst but it is a property which adjoins the Ridley property.

2 The tree which is the subject of this application is dead and there is agreement between the parties, based on professional arborist’s advice, as to the height above the ground at which the dead tree should be removed. We have identified a location between two nodes on the trunk of the tree (pointed out to the parties) and they have agreed that will be an appropriate point for the Court to identify, in a consent Order for removal, as the point at which such removal should take place.

3 We are left, then, to determine the question of whether or not the Gylers should be required to pay compensation to Mr Ridley for damage caused to his property.

4 The sum that is claimed is $1420 in total and is made up of four elements.

5 Two minor elements comprise the physical cost of additional ridge caps and replacement tiles - these costs totalling $40.

6 The next element claimed is $380. This is based on a quotation, attached to Mr Ridley’s application, from Davlan Roof Tiling Pty Ltd to Mr Ridley dated 9 February 2007 for re-bedding and pointing of six ridge caps located on the more easterly of the two north facing dormers on the main body of the house structure.

7 We have inspected the dead tree both from the Ridley property and from the Gyler property and we have seen…