Britt v Doyle [2015] NSWLEC 1355

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Britt v Doyle [2015] NSWLEC 1355 Hearing dates: 27 August 2015 Date of orders: 27 August 2015 Decision date: 27 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is upheld. See orders at paragraph 15. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage; compensation; debris; orders for pruning. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wayne Britt (Applicant) Michael Doyle (Respondent) Representation: Wayne Britt, litigant in person (Applicant) Michael Doyle, litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s): 20411 of 2015

Judgment

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

Background 1. Mr Britt ('the applicant') has applied to the Court under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') seeking orders for the removal of a neighbouring tree and for compensation for damage he says was caused by the tree. Mr Doyle ('the respondent') owns the neighbouring property on which the tree grows. He says he doesn't mind if the tree remains or is removed, but if it is to be removed he says that Mr Britt should pay the cost of its removal.

The applicant's position 1. The tree is situated in Mr Doyle's back yard, close to the common boundary with Mr Britt's property. Mr Britt says falling branches have damaged his roof by causing dents in the corrugated iron. He says many leaves and twigs fall into his roof valleys and gutters, too many for him to clean out, and that this has caused water to leak inside his dwelling on at least one occasion. He has submitted a quote for $1,850 to replace a section of iron roofing on the 15-year-old extension to his dwelling. 2. Mr Britt says falling limbs have damaged several flyscreens on his windows and a piece of lattice atop a section of the boundary fence. He seeks $25 for each fly screen but does not seek compensation for the lattice. 3. Mr Britt says the tree drops excessive amounts of leaf litter and debris onto his property and onto the property further to his east, owned by Mr Hiles, who attended the hearing. 4. Mr Britt says roots from the tree grow towards his property and will cause damage. 5. Mr Britt says the tree is growing in a transpiration area on Mr Doyle's property that is filled with coarse material he said was 'chitter', or coal waste, rather than soil, and so the tree is unstable and may fall.