Weeraratne v Xi & Liu [2018] NSWLEC 1548

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Weeraratne v Xi & Liu [2018] NSWLEC 1548 Hearing dates: 2 October 2018 Date of orders: 02 October 2018 Decision date: 02 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES [DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS]: tree located on boundary – risk of failure – damage – injury Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Ridley v Gyler [2007] NSWLEC 220 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ranjith Weeraratne (Applicant) Jing Xi (First Respondent) Xuesong Lui (Second Respondent) Representation: Ranjith Weeraratne, litigant in person (Applicant) Jing Xi, litigant in person (First Respondent) Xuesong Lui, litigant in person (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/198143 Publication restriction: No

Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1. ACTING COMMISSIONER: This is an application, pursuant to s 7 of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2007(NSW) (Trees Act) by Ranjith Weeraratne of Beecroft. It concerns a large dead Gum tree (Eucalyptus microcorys) located on and across the side boundary with the neighbouring property, owned by Jing Xi and Xuesong Lui (the respondents). 2. Mr Weeraratne contends that the tree is primarily located in his neighbour's property, and that there is a risk of failure of trunks and branches that "may be a potential damage to my newly constructed house", and a potential threat of "injury or death" to people in the garden and on the 'road reserve' (nature strip). 3. The respondents have lived at their property for about three (3) years and claim to have been unaware of the dead tree or any issues with it upon purchasing the property, and until the applicant approached them verbally in March 2018. 4. Mr Weeraratne then provided both 'Notification 1' on 27th April 2018 and 'Notification 2' on 11th May 2018 in writing. Both these were titled 'Removing of two dead trees' and both demand that the respondents remove them. The applicant claims that they offered to contribute to the removal cost when conducting verbal negotiations. 5. In paragraph 2 of Notification 2, Mr Weeraratne writes that "you are the owner of dead two trees as the majority of tree routes are on your land" and advises that Court action will be commenced if they are not removed within the "next two weeks." 6. This proposal order is resisted by the respondents, who do not accept that the tree is primarily in their property, do not believe the applicant's evidence proves this, and thus do not accept that they are responsible for organising the work or paying for the tree removal.