Xu v Seccombe [2023] NSWLEC 1670

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Xu v Seccombe [2023] NSWLEC 1670 Hearing dates: 26 September 2023 Date of orders: 26 September 2023 Decision date: 26 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The application is refused. (2) The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibit A. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – neighbouring trees – whether trees have caused or are likely to cause damage to the applicant's property – whether other matters are within the jurisdiction of the Trees Act Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2 ss 7, 9, 10 Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Xiu Yan Xu (First Applicant) Xiabing Xu (Second Applicant) Eileen Claire Seccombe (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: X Xu (Self-represented) (First Applicant) X Xu (Self-represented) (Second Applicant) L Nurpuri (Respondent)

Solicitors: Bick and Steele (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/180739 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background 1. COMMISSIONER: Xiu Yan Xu and Xiabing Xu (the applicants) have applied to the Court seeking orders relating to four trees growing on the neighbouring Chatswood West property of Eileen Seccombe (Eileen Johns) (the respondent). Pursuant to Pt 2, s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act), the applicants seek the removal of the four trees. In addition, they seek an order for the respondent to remove a brush-turkey nest and all logs and debris within 30 metres of the common boundary, and a further order to prevent the respondent storing such material near the boundary. They seek an order for the costs of their application as well as $21,622.45 for damages and compensation. 2. The respondent disputes that her trees have caused, or are likely to cause, damage to the applicants' property. 3. The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to inspect the trees and relevant issues.