Ruoso v Hoang & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1062

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ruoso v Hoang & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1062 Hearing dates: 18 March 2014 Decision date: 09 April 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: See paragraphs 19-22 Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage; compensation. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: APPLICANT Carmela Ruoso

RESPONDENTS Thi Ngoc Hoang (First respondent) Huu Quoc Viet Nguyen (Second respondent) Representation: APPLICANT Ken Thomas (Solicitor) F C Bryant Thomas & Co

RESPONDENT No appearance File Number(s): 20965 of 2013

Judgment 1Under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Ms Ruoso (the applicant) seeks orders for the owners of the neighbouring Penshurst property, Thi Ngoc Hoang and Huu Quoc Viet Nguyen (the respondents), to pay for repair to a section of paving she says is damaged by roots from two trees on their property and for removal of the trees. She also seeks orders for costs incurred for expert reports, for making the application to the Court and for cutting concrete for an inspection hole. 2Ms Ruoso relies on the following documents: * Field notes dated 2/07/2014 by Mark Hartley, a consulting arborist, recommending further investigation. * A report dated 3/12/2013 by Mark Hartley identifying roots, discussing damage and making further recommendations. * A report dated 24/02/2014 by John Cavasinni, a civil and structural engineer, addressing the possibility of tree roots causing damage to the paving. 3Ms Ruoso included in her application a quote for replacing the damaged section of paving, the invoice for concrete cutting and invoices for the three reports. 4Commissioners of the Court do not have the power to order payment of costs of reports and making an application. Should she wish, the applicant may file a Notice of Motion with the Court for a Judge or the Registrar to decide that matter as she or he determines is appropriate. 5Before moving on from the matter of costs of reports I note that the report of John Cavasinni, engineer, is dated 24 February 2014. It was filed with the Court on 3 March 2014. Direction 6 of the Court (made 18 February 2014) required the applicant's evidence to be filed and served by 28 February 2014. The report refers to Mr Cavasinni's site inspection of 10 December 2013. Mr Cavasinni's invoice is included in the Schedule of Expenses (Exhibit D). It is dated 19 December 2013 and refers to "site inspection etc" on 10 December 2013 and "report etc" on 19 December 2013. The invoice is for an amount of $1,155. Mr Cavasinni's report is two pages but consists of only four paragraphs followed by a statement of compliance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. At Paragraph 3 Mr Cavasinni states: "I have calculated that these pressures are enough to cause the concrete to undergo curvature...". However any such calculations are not included. Some generalisations then follow. The report does not assist the Court.