NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zarate v Horton [2023] NSWLEC 1375 Hearing dates: 20 June 2023 Date of orders: 19 July 2023 Decision date: 19 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The Pt 2 application is granted. (2) The Pt 2A application is granted. (3) The respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably experienced and insured contractor to remove all bamboo from their property and the applicant's property within 2 metres of any common boundary shared with the applicant. These works are to be completed within 30 days of the date of these orders; and are to be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) 'Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work'. (4) The applicant is to provide any access required to complete the works in order (3) during reasonable hours, on 48 hours' notice from the respondents. (5) The respondents are to take any steps necessary to prevent bamboo regrowing on their property within 2 metres of any common boundary shared with the applicant. (6) Any further hedge plantings on the respondents' property within 2 metres of any common boundary shared with the applicant are to be limited to plant species that grow no taller than 3 metres. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – damage caused by neighbouring trees – damage is likely in the near future – orders for tree removal – Pt 2A application – bamboo – obstruction of sunlight and views – whether the obstruction is severe – benefits of the bamboo – whether the bamboo should be maintained or removed Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 ss 7, 10, 12, Pt 2A ss 14B, 14E, 14F Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Texts Cited: Safe Work Australia, 'Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work' (July 2016) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anibal Zarate (Applicant) Anthea Horton (First Respondent) Gary Horton (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Zarate (Self-represented) (Applicant) J Burrell (Solicitor) (Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate