Channon & anor v Norton & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1391

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Channon & anor v Norton & anor [2015] NSWLEC 1391 Hearing dates: 25 September 2015 Date of orders: 25 September 2015 Decision date: 25 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is upheld. See orders at paragraph 18. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage caused by tree roots; orders for tree removal. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Philip Channon (First Applicant) Tonya Channon (Second Applicant) Luke Norton (First Respondent) Katie Norton (Second Respondent) Representation: Philip and Tonya Channon, litigants in person (Applicants) Stephen Maitz, solicitor (Respondents) File Number(s): 20619 of 2015

Judgment

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

Background 1. Mr and Mrs Channon ('the applicants') have lived at their Bargo property for 15 years. In their backyard they have a roofed structure next to their pool – a 'cabana'. Around three years ago they noticed cracking of the brick wall along the northern side of the cabana, alongside their side boundary, which is the common boundary shared with Mr and Ms Norton ('the respondents'). A 14-metre Tallowwood (Eucalyptus microcorys) grows on the Nortons' property, close to the Channons' cracked brick wall. The Channons informed the Nortons of the damage when they first noticed it. 2. The Channons wish to repair the wall but say this requires the removal of the Tallowwood. They have applied to the Land and Environment Court under Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') seeking orders for its removal. They do not seek orders for compensation. They seek orders for costs regarding reports and filing the application, but if they wish to pursue this they will need to file a Notice of Motion to be heard by the Registrar or a Judge of the Court. 3. The Channons also seek removal of a Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) on the Nortons' property, adjacent to the boundary fence, as they want to replace the fence and say it will obstruct the works or with further growth it will damage the new fence. They do not seek orders regarding the fence. Orders for other trees that were the subject of their application are no longer pressed by the applicants as those trees have been removed or pruned.