NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bradley v Federico & anor [2016] NSWLEC 1381 Hearing dates: 31 August 2016 Date of orders: 31 August 2016 Decision date: 31 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is upheld in regard to Tree 2. See orders at (10). Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage; injury; one tree not on respondent's land; orders to remove one tree. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Bradley (Applicant) Caterina Bernadette Federico (First Respondent) Antony Federico (Second Respondent) Representation: John Bradley, litigant in person (Applicant) Antony Federico, litigant in person (Respondents) File Number(s): 165727 of 2016
Judgment
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.
Background 1. A group of three Swamp Mahoganies (Eucalyptus robusta) stands at the front of Caterina and Antony Federico's ('the respondents') Sylvania property. In January of this year a branch fell from one tree, damaging their neighbour Mr Bradley's garage. Mr Bradley ('the applicant') asked the Federicos to remove the trees. When the trees remained some months later he subsequently applied to the Court pursuant to Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act') seeking orders for the trees to be removed. Mr Bradley seeks $500 compensation for the excess he paid to his insurer for damage caused to his dwelling by the failed branch. Compensation he also seeks for his application fee of $234 is not an order that a Commissioner of the Court can make. 2. Mr Federico explained that, due to their financial situation, he and his wife would find it difficult to pay for any works. Their lack of any action in regard to the trees has perhaps been due not so much to wilful neglect, but more to prioritising their currently limited financial resources. 3. The hearing took place on site. Neither party has obtained any report on the trees, but I bring my own arboricultural expertise to the matter.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate