The Court dismissed the applicants' costs motion in a Class 2 tree dispute, holding that the respondent's refusal to remove a tree, based on its own arborist's advice, did not constitute unreasonable conduct sufficient to displace the presumptive rule under r 3.7(2) of the LEC Rules that each party bear their own costs. The Court held that a finding under s 10(1)(a) of the Trees Act that the respondent was 'dismissive and evasive' in pre-litigation negotiations was a jurisdictional threshold finding and could not, in and of itself, warrant a costs order. The applicants' partial success on the merits (succeeding on tree removal and fence remediation but failing on the retaining wall claim) further weighed against a costs order.
The full text is available to signed-in members.