Shields v Monhim & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1097

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Shields v Monhim & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1097 Hearing dates: 23 May 2014 Decision date: 23 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: Application upheld see paragraph [64] Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Damage to property; injury; compensation; rectification of damage Legislation Cited: Dividing Fences Act 1991 Limitation Act 1969 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Barker v Kryiakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Maroney v John [2008] NSWLEC 32 Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr R M Shields (Applicant) Mr M & Mrs H Monhim (Respondents) Representation: Applicant: Mr R M Shields (Litigant in person) Respondents: Ex parte File Number(s): 20160 of 2014

Judgment 1COMMISSIONER: This is an application made under s 7 Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) by an owner of a property in Silverwater, against the owners of trees growing on the adjoining property to the east. 2The applicant is seeking the following orders (as summarised from a very detailed statement of claim): * Removal of a mature Camphor Laurel and bamboo, to include poisoning and stump removal; * Removal of roots from the applicant's property, including those beneath the footings of the dwelling; * Removal and replacement of sections of storm water and sewer pipes; * Removal and replacement of sections of the concrete driveway and garage floor; * Re-levelling of footings beneath the house and the relaying of tiles; * Shared replacement of the dividing fence; * Replacement of the garage doors; and * Reimbursement of costs incurred in rectifying damaged property and costs associated with the making of the application to the Court. * All items except the fence are to be at the respondents' expense. 3The applicant contends that the roots of the Camphor Laurel have, for many years, caused considerable damage to his property. He also claims that the tree poses a risk of injury arising from trip hazards and falling branches. In regards to the Bamboo, the concern is that will colonise the rear of his property and lead to on-going maintenance problems.