Manasseh v Segal & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1014

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Manasseh v Segal & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1014 Hearing dates: 20 January 2016 Date of orders: 20 January 2016 Decision date: 20 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is upheld. See orders at paragraph 17. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage or injury; debris; obstruction of sunlight; orders for installation of a bracing cable. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 Murray v Shoebridge [2007] NSWLEC 785 P. Baer Investments Pty Limited v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 128 Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Heather Manasseh (Applicant) Susanna Segal (First Respondent) Christopher Sheehan (Second Respondent) Representation: Heather Manasseh, litigant in person (Applicant) Susanna Segal, litigant in person (First Respondent) Christopher Sheehan, litigant in person (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 20923 of 2015

Judgment

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

Background 1. A Queensland Brushbox (Lophostemon confertus) stands in a small rear courtyard in densely populated Ultimo. Ms Segal and Mr Sheehan ('the respondents') have owned the property, and the tree, since 2004. Their property is one in a row of west-facing terrace houses. A narrow right-of-way separates their rear courtyard from the back of another row of east-facing terrace houses. Ms Manasseh ('the applicant') has owned the property directly to the east of the tree for approximately 20 years. 2. Ms Manasseh is troubled by the tree: by the debris it drops, by the risk of large branches falling and by other issues. Pursuant to Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') she has filed an application with the Land and Environment Court seeking orders for the tree to be pruned. In particular she would like three large branches removed entirely. 3. The respondents enjoy the benefits of the tree. They are willing to have the tree pruned but say the extensive pruning requested by Ms Manasseh would damage the tree and, if such pruning is required, they would prefer that the tree be removed. They are willing to pay for minor pruning but suggest that Ms Manasseh should pay for the tree's removal should that be required.