Becker v Runciman [2016] NSWLEC 1624

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Becker v Runciman [2016] NSWLEC 1624 Hearing dates: 20 December 2016 Date of orders: 20 December 2016 Decision date: 20 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage; no evidence that tree roots have caused damage; respondent can prune overhanging branches. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Terence James Becker (Applicant) John Wayne Runciman (Respondent) Representation: Terence James Becker, litigant in person (Applicant) John Wayne Runciman, litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s): 240397 of 2016

Judgment

Background 1. Mr Becker ('the applicant') of Kingfisher Shores seeks orders for the removal of a neighbouring fig tree. The tree grows immediately adjacent to his side boundary and is not much more than a metre from his dwelling. Branches overhang the boundary and brush against his roof, guttering and a television reception dish. A crack runs across the paved path between the tree and his dwelling. Mr Becker is not sure if the crack is caused by the tree, but says it might be, and if it is he wants it repaired by his neighbour. He has applied to the Court pursuant to Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act'). 2. Mr Becker's neighbour Mr Runciman ('the respondent') planted the tree in 2011 as a semi-mature bonsai specimen that had been grown in a pot. He planted it in a narrow bed against the boundary, in between the two neighbouring dwellings which are only about two metres apart at this point. Mr Runciman says the crack in his neighbour's paving existed before he planted the tree. He says Mr Becker trespassed on his property to prune the tree in 2015. He says the tree contributes to the landscape value of his property. 3. At the onsite hearing Mr Becker expressed his concerns, and in my view justifiably so, about the tree's potential to grow much larger and to impact his property.