Endicott v Esther [2015] NSWLEC 1290

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Endicott v Esther [2015] NSWLEC 1290 Hearing dates: 28 July 2015 Date of orders: 28 July 2015 Decision date: 28 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage; injury; applicant can take practical measures to deal with issues; application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Timothy Endicott (Applicant) Marielle Esther (Respondent) Representation: Timothy Endicott, litigant in person (Applicant) Marielle Esther, litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s): 20353 of 2015

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background 1. Mr Tim Endicott ('the applicant') lives in his Croydon Park dwelling, next door to Mrs Marielle Esther ('the respondent'). Mrs Esther has small trees and shrubs in a garden bed along the common boundary between the properties: five small trees including Buddleja and, nearer the front of the property, five Camellia shrubs. Pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') Mr Endicott has applied to the Land and Environment Court seeking orders for Mrs Esther to prune the ten trees and shrubs, to remove all branches that overhang the boundary, twice yearly. He is concerned that branches will scratch vehicles in his driveway and injure people on the driveway, and that fallen leaves cause staining of his driveway. 2. With the Court's approval, Mr Endicott had earlier amended his application to include the five Camellias, on the grounds that these trees are obstructing views and may cause injury. Mrs Esther prepared responses to all issues raised by Mr Endicott. At the onsite hearing Mr Endicott said he did not wish to press his application under Part 2A of the Trees Act, and now only applies for orders pursuant to Part 2. He also withdrew at the hearing two orders that he sought, one for Mrs Esther to maintain the Camellias at a height of no more than 2.5 metres, and the other for recovery of costs for a leaf blower and some driveway paint.