NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Adamski v Betty (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 330
APPLICANTS Ceasar & Jolanta Adamski PARTIES : RESPONDENT Dorothy Betty
FILE NUMBER(S) : 20087 of 2007
CORAM: Moore C - Fakes AC
KEY ISSUES: Trees (Neighbours) - Neighbour Application :- Application to re-open
LEGISLATION CITED: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
VAW (Kurri Kurri) Pty Limited v Scientific Committee [2003] 128 LGERA 419; CASES CITED: Autodesk Inc & Anor v Dyason & Ors [1993] 176 CLR 300; Red Sea Investments Pty Limited v Ku-ring-gai Council (No 2) [2005] NSWLEC 490
DATES OF HEARING: 19 April 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 19 April 2007
APPLICANTS In person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr J Johnson, solicitor Bartier Perry
JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
MOORE C FAKES AC
19 April 2007
20087 of 2007 Ceasar & Jolanta Adamski v Dorothy Betty
JUDGMENT
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1 COMMISSIONER MOORE: In this matter, on Tuesday 10 April, Acting Commissioner Fakes and I attended the site upon which the Bunya Pine (Araucaria bidwillii) is located at 27 Braeside Street, Wahroonga and the adjoining property owned by Mr and Mrs Adamski at 31 Braeside Street. During the course of that day, we gave an extemporaneous decision concerning a Silky Oak (Grevillia robusta) (a tree which does not detain us on this occasion) and the Bunya Pine.
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