Little v Tomicic [2018] NSWLEC 1413

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Little v Tomicic [2018] NSWLEC 1413 Hearing dates: 17 July 2018 Date of orders: 10 August 2018 Decision date: 10 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – terracotta pipes – when the damage occurred – actions taken by the applicant – actions taken by the respondent Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Fifield v Sang and Wang [2018] NSWLEC 1377 Knight v Simmons [2018] NSWLEC 1231 Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; (2008) 159 LGERA 280 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joan Maureen Little (Applicant) Zoran Tomicic (Respondent) Representation: J M Little, litigant in person (Applicant) B Woolf, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors Woolf Associates (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/104161 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Background 1. Maureen Little ('the applicant') owns a property on the slopes of Woronora. Several years ago a sewer pipe on her property became blocked. A plumber attended and cleared the pipe. In 2017, her sewer pipe again was blocked. The plumber who cleared it found tree roots in the pipe. Mrs Little determined that the roots were from trees on the neighbouring property belonging to Zoran Tomicic ('the respondent'). She asked Mr Tomicic to remove trees, which he has done, and to pay for pipe repairs and installing a root barrier. Mr Tomicic disputes these works are his responsibility. 2. In the past, a large tree fell from Mr Tomicic's property onto Mrs Little's property, causing more than $20,000 of damage, recovered through property insurance. Although that tree and the damage it caused are not part of this application, Mrs Little is concerned that large limbs might fall from another of the respondent's trees, causing further damage to her property. 3. The trees that Mrs Little says have caused damage to pipes are a Cheese Tree (T1) and a Lilly Pilly (T2). The tree she says might damage her property with falling limbs is an Angophora (T3). 4. Mrs Little applied to the Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) ('the Trees Act'), seeking orders for: 1. Repair of the pipe, with respondent paying the cost of repair to the section damaged by tree roots. 2. Installation of a root barrier, at the respondent's expense, along the boundary next to her front garden to prevent root growth into her property. 3. Pruning of T3 and ongoing inspections and pruning of T1, T2 and T3, as well as other trees OD6 and OD7, Eucalypts in Mr Tomicic's rear garden. 1. After the application was filed and before the onsite hearing, Mr Tomicic had T2 removed and T3 pruned. Mrs Little also discovered her sewer pipes are several years older than she originally thought. She sought leave to amend the orders to: include apportionment of costs for pipe repairs, considering their age; exclude immediate pruning of T3; and amend orders for ongoing inspection and pruning works to apply to T1, T3 and OD6.