Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sheehan v Santosa [2023] NSWLEC 1279 Hearing dates: 21 February 2023 Date of orders: 06 June 2023 Decision date: 06 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: See Orders at [70].
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to dwelling roof – unreasonable level of falling debris claimed
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081
Texts Cited: Australian Standard, AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees
Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work 2016
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Annette Sheehan (Applicant)
Adam Santosa (First Respondent)
Carly Santosa (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
C Koikas (Applicant)
C Santosa (Solicitor) (Respondents)
Maguire & McInerney Lawyers (Applicant)
Nikolovski Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 22/348147 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: Two large Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutts) (the trees) are growing on fertile clay soils on an east facing hillside below the Illawarra escarpment, on the Santosas’ (the respondents) property in Mount Pleasant.
-
Mr Beisler, in an arborist report for the applicant (Exhibit D), called them “sentinel trees”, and this description is apt. The trees are mature and long established, about 25 metres (m) tall, with straight, strong trunks with diameters of about 1.25 m at breast height (DBH).
-
Eucalyptus pilularis comprises individuals that may live for 200 – 300 years or more, should they grow under ideal conditions and experience good fortune with respect to bushfires, storms, and lightning. In urban areas, their life span is usually much shorter.
-
Mr Beisler submitted that the trees were “remnant” and though I am not familiar with the history of this area’s settlement by non-first nations people, these Blackbutts are likely to be remnant of the natural vegetation. Determination of the age of long-established trees is difficult as many variables may impact their appearance. As a generalisation, ‘hollows’ (or cavities) begin to develop in long-lived Eucalyptus trees after 80 - 120 years, but their establishment is influenced by the severity and frequency of broken or shed branches or trunk apexes during major storms, and the health and vigour of the trees, which impacts resistance to wood decay fungi. Though these trees do not yet exhibit obvious hollows, I nonetheless expect their age to exceed 100 years.
-
Ms Sheehan (the applicant) claims to have endured falling branches breaking her dwelling’s roof tiles for many years, and her application included photographs of secondary damage from the entry of water. The applicant submitted that urgent intervention with the trees was necessary as she feared that her house insurer may otherwise discontinue her cover for such damage, given that she had made various prior insurance claims for damage resulting from the trees, and had another one pending.
-
As the hillside is quite steep, the applicant’s property is considerably lower than the…
Continue reading Sheehan v Santosa
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sheehan v Santosa [2023] NSWLEC 1279
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 1279
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Santosa breached the duty of care owed to Sheehan under common law and whether there were breaches of the contractual terms regarding overtime compensation and safe work conditions. The court also needed to assess the validity of Sheehan's claims and Santosa's counterclaims. Key issues included the nature and extent of the duty of care in the employment context, the interpretation of contractual terms, and the causation and damages for any established breaches.
In resolving the dispute, the court examined the evidence and applicable legal principles. The court found that Santosa had not breached the duty of care to Sheehan, as the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe working environment. The court also determined that Sheehan had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Santosa failed to compensate him for overtime work as per the contract. Regarding the counterclaim, the court found Santosa's claims to be unsubstantiated. Consequently, Sheehan's claims were dismissed, and Santosa's counterclaim was also rejected. The court ordered Sheehan to pay Santosa's costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
See Orders at [70].
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.