Hunt v Sidhu [2024] NSWLEC 1050

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hunt v Sidhu [2024] NSWLEC 1050 Hearing dates: 12 February 2024 Date of orders: 12 February 2024 Decision date: 12 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The Court orders: (1) The application is refused. (2) The exhibits are returned, other than Exhibits A and B. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –Pt 2 application – risk of damage and injury from two neighbouring trees – whether the application was served on the respondent – trees partly removed prior to the hearing Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, ss 7, 10, 12 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Derek Hunt (First Applicant) Karen Hunt (Second Applicant) T S Sidhu (First Respondent) M A Sidhu (First Respondent) Representation: D Hunt (Self-represented) (Applicants) No appearance (Respondents) File Number(s): 2023/312787 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

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

Background 1. COMMISSIONER: Tall native trees grow on an adjoining property to the west of the Woolgoolga property belonging to Derek and Karen Hunt (the applicants). The applicants became concerned that two of those trees might fall onto their property, damaging either their dwelling or a shed. They applied to the Court pursuant to s 7 (Pt 2) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) seeking orders for the removal of both trees. The owners of the adjoining property are identified in the application as T S Sidhu and M A Sidhu (the respondents). The applicants have known a person by the name of Major Sidhu as the owner of the property. Major Sidhu, who came to the onsite hearing, claims not to own the property, having sold it to relatives, apparently those named as the respondents. Major Sidhu owns a nearby property, but seems to have some oversight for several properties held by family members. Major Sidhu had no authority to act as agent for the respondents, who did not appear. The matter was heard ex parte.