Wright v Adamski [2007] NSWLEC 787

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Wright v Adamski [2007] NSWLEC 787

APPLICANT Joseph Wright and Doreen Wright PARTIES :

RESPONDENT Gregory John Adamski and Terese Danuta Adamski

FILE NUMBER(S) : 20857 of 2007

CORAM: Thyer AC

KEY ISSUES: Neighbour Application :- removal of a tree, damages, costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

DATES OF HEARING: 20/11/2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 20 November 2007

APPLICANT Mr P. Welch, solicitor LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

RESPONDENT Mr G. and Mrs T Adamski, litigants in person

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Thyer AC

20 November 2007

20857 of 2007 J & D Wright v G & T Adamski

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 orders are not reproduced as part of this decision but a copy of 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 http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lec/ 1 Acting Commissioner: This is an application pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 concerning one tree (the tree) situated at 23A Ramah Avenue Mount Ousley (the property). The property is owned by Gregory and Therese Adamski. 2 The tree is a Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia). 3 The application has been made by Joseph and Doreen Wright, owners of 23 Ramah Avenue, the adjoining property to the east of the tree. 4 The application seeks orders from the Court that : a. The tree be removed at the Adamskis' cost; b. Compensation be made for damage to Mr & Mrs Wright's property; c. Costs and outgoings involved in the preparation of the application and previous attempts to remedy the situation since 2004 be paid to the Wrights by the Adamskis. 5 The relevant provisions of s 10(2) of the Act require that the Court be satisfied that one or more of four conditions are met, with respect to each tree subject of an application, before the Court has jurisdiction to consider the application concerning that tree.