Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION : O'Donnell v Yam [2008] NSWLEC 1444
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
APPLICANT
Brendan O'Donnell
PARTIES :
RESPONDENTS
Elseve Yam and Warren Yam
FILE NUMBER(S) : 20843 of 2008
CORAM: Moore C
Jurisdiction - Trees (Neighbours) :-
KEY ISSUES: Tree removed prior to lodgment of application
No jurisdiction
LEGISLATION CITED: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
CASES CITED: Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) LGERA 280
DATES OF HEARING: 13 October 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 13 October 2008
APPLICANT
In person
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
RESPONDENTS
In person
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
MOORE C
13 October 2008
20843 of 2008 Brendan O'Donnell v Elseve Yam and Warren Yam
JUDGMENT
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.
1 COMMISSIONER : The tree that is the subject of the application was not in existence as at 19 August 2008, when Mr O'Donnell's application was filed with the Court, as it had already been removed by Mr and Ms Yam.
2 As a consequence, I am obliged, for the reasons discussed by Preston CJ in Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) LGERA 280 at para 144, to dismiss the application because, as there was no tree the subject of an application situated on the Yams' land at the date the application was made, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application is dismissed.
Tim Moore
Commissioner of the Court
03/11/2008 - Correction to date - Paragraph(s) Cover sheet
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.