The Court ordered removal of one declining eucalypt and pruning of three others to prevent damage to the applicant's property, with costs borne by the current tree owner (first respondent) notwithstanding that she purchased the property after the trees became problematic. The Court refused all compensation claims against the former tree owner: direct branch-damage claims failed because invoices were not adequately itemised to isolate tree-related repair costs from general renovation works; indirect debris/deterioration claims failed because roof condition was attributable to age, materials and inadequate maintenance rather than trees; and root damage compensation was refused as the damage was minor and largely time-barred. The Court found that a beneficiary of a family trust whose corporate trustee held the subject property had standing as an occupier under the Trees Act and a sufficient financial interest to claim compensation, though the claim ultimately failed on evidentiary grounds.
The full text is available to signed-in members.