Interpretation guidance & jurisdictional findings
Interpretation guidance & jurisdictional findings
Guidance decision on matters to be considered in claims for compensation for property damage
In paragraphs 136 to 219 in the case of Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152 (1 May 2008), Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the Court, provides a guide to the requirements of the various matters the Court might need to deal with for applications seeking orders for compensation for property damage under the Trees Act.
Interpretation guidance
From time to time, the Court considers the meaning of a provision of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act).
These decisions are set out below:
“in the near future” – s 10(2)(a) – Interpretation Guidance
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 |
Jurisdictional findings
The Trees Act limits the Court’s jurisdiction in tree disputes to the various factual circumstances defined by the wording of the Act.
From time to time, the Court makes decisions on whether or not the facts of an application fall within the Court’s jurisdiction under the Act.
These decisions (and the jurisdictional issue dealt with in each) are set out below:
Damage caused by animals, birds or insect is not caused by the tree which attracts them or provides habitat for them – s 10(2) – Jurisdictional finding
Dooley & anor v Nevell [2007] NSWLEC 715 |
Trees “situated on adjoining land” include trees separated from the applicant’s land by a public road– s 7 – Jurisdictional finding
P. Baer Investments Pty Limited v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWLEC 128 |
Vines are not trees – s 3(1) – Jurisdictional finding
Buckingham v Ryder [2007] NSWLEC 458 |
|
