The Court ordered removal of a Camphor laurel (Tree 2) that was crushing a boundary fence against the applicant's pool shed and causing minor Pebblecrete damage, but declined to order removal of a Celtis sinensis (Tree 1) where the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the tree and alleged pool, fence, and hardscape damage. Leaf drop, pool maintenance costs, and bird faeces were dismissed under the Tree Dispute Principle in Barker v Kyriakides as matters of reasonable urban maintenance, and claims of danger from branch breakage during high winds were rejected on the basis that outdoor occupancy rates are significantly reduced during such conditions, meaning risk of injury does not necessarily increase. The Court also held that fence replacement costs arising from age-related deterioration rather than tree damage would ordinarily be shared under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW), and that claims for reimbursement of filing fees fall outside the power of commissioners.
The full text is available to signed-in members.