Bousfield v Gallegos [2017] NSWLEC 1562

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bousfield v Gallegos [2017] NSWLEC 1562 Hearing dates: 20 September 2017 Date of orders: 05 October 2017 Decision date: 05 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes AC Decision: See [31] Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] :Damage to property; potential injury; compensation; actions of the parties Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Hinde v Anderson & anor [2009] NSWLEC 1148 Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192 McCallum v Riodan & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1009 Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yvonne Bousfield (Applicant) Gonzalo Gallegos (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Mr J Bousfield (Agent) Respondent: Mr G Gallegos (Litigant in person) File Number(s): 2017/173341

JUDGMENT 1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant, has applied under both s 7 Part 2 and s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) seeking orders for pruning or relocation of trees growing on the respondent's Fairfield West property and for payment of a range of costs. The applicant was represented by her son, Mr Jason Bousfield. The respondent was self-represented.

The trees 1. The application claim form includes a diagram indicating the approximate location of nine trees and shrubs growing along the respondent's northern side boundary. The applicant's dwelling is to the south. The applicant was unable to identify the species. 2. During the on-site hearing, I identified the trees and shrubs as follows – from east to west: * T1 – Cestrum * T2 – Liquidambar * T3 – Bangalow Palm * T4 – Norfolk Island Pine * T5 – Jacaranda * T6 - Large-leafed Privet * T7 – Podocarpus * T8 – Umbrella tree * T9 – Variegated Duranta 1. At the end of October 2016, after being made aware of a problem with the applicant's sewer, the respondent sought and obtained permission from Fairfield Council to remove a large Fig tree; the stump was removed with a stump grinder. The respondent stated that there was another large Fig growing on a property that adjoins both his and the applicant's properties. The owner of that property had the tree, including its stump, removed. Since the application was made, the respondent has removed all branches that were overhanging the applicant's property.