Barbalace v Solomons

Jurisdictional requirements

1. With respect to s 7, an owner of land may apply to the Court for an order to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property on the land, or to prevent injury to any person, as a consequence of a tree to which this Act applies that is situated on adjoining land.
2. The Court's ability to make orders is limited, at s 10 of the Trees Act. 10 Matters of which Court must be satisfied before making an order (1) The Court must not make an order under this Part unless it is satisfied: (a) that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owner of the land on which the tree is situated, and (b) if the requirement to give notice has not been waived, that the applicant has given notice of the application in accordance with section 8. (2) The Court must not make an order under this Part unless it is satisfied that the tree concerned: (a) has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause, damage to the applicant's property, or (b) is likely to cause injury to any person.
3. If the jurisdictional tests at s 10 of the Trees Act are satisfied, the Court can make orders such as those at s 9 to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property, or to prevent injury to a person, as a consequence of the tree. Before determining the nature of any orders, the Court must consider a range of matters set out at s 12. The record of correspondence and conversations between the parties, including that Mr Barbalace unsuccessfully sought mediation with the respondents through a Community Justice Centre, displays that he has made reasonable effort to reach agreement. Therefore the principal jurisdictional test in this matter is at s 10(2).

Damage to television antenna

1. The respondents claim that the television antenna was already damaged and rusty, that they maintain the bamboo regularly, and that they should not be liable for damage. Notwithstanding this, the bamboo spans a garden bed about ten metres long, and is about seven metres tall. Contrary to the respondents' submission, during heavy winds it would likely sway significantly, and contact the applicant's dwelling. From evidence adduced on site, and from photographs provided, I am satisfied, on the balance of probability, that the bamboo is, at least, one of the causes of damage to the television antenna.
2. Regardless how minor the damage may appear, the Court's decision in Granger v Owners Corporation SP 18494 [2012] NSWLEC 1285 indicates that even relatively minor damage engages the Court's jurisdiction, provided that the nexus between the damage and tree causation has been displayed.
3. The level of satisfaction required by s 10(2) is discussed in Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29, where at [62] Craig J states in part "something more than a theoretical possibility is required in order to engage the power under [the Trees] Act to make an order to remedy, restrain or prevent damage".
4. The applicant claimed that the bamboo has already damaged his replacement antenna, and displayed small metal pieces that had been dislodged. Again regardless of how minor this damage, I am satisfied that the bamboo, in its current form, is also likely to cause damage in the near future.
5. In a guidance decision published in Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592, as a rule of thumb, the 'near future' is deemed to be a period of 12 months from the date of the determination.
6. Given that s 10(2) of the Act is engaged, the Court must consider a range of matters set out at s 12.
7. The planter box structure containing the bamboo is located close, and parallel to the shared timber paling boundary fence. It is robust and contains the bamboo effectively. The stems are relatively clear of the fence, but may sway into contact during strong winds (subs 12(a)).
8. Subsection 12(b) considers whether interference with the tree would, in the absence of s 6(3), require any consent or other authorisation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or the Heritage Act 1977, and, if so, whether any such consent or authorisation has been obtained.
9. The respondents note that the applicant's rear balcony extends closer towards their property than permitted under Building Application No. 39/93. The applicant submitted, that in response to a complaint by the respondents, Council inspected the alleged breach, and that no rectification notice was issued. The applicant claimed that they were given retrospective verbal permission for the balcony extension, and, in the absence of written notification from Council to either party following the inspection, it is reasonable to accept that tacit permission was granted. The applicant noted that he was required to install a privacy screen at the end of the balcony, to benefit the respondents, and this was evident on site.
10. Subsection 12(b2) considers the impact any pruning would have on the tree, which in this case is the bamboo. The respondents submitted that it was relatively easy for them to arch the bamboo canes over so as to prune them to reduce their length, and that they do this regularly. This variety of bamboo grows strongly, and will generally tolerate such pruning maintenance with little negative impact.
11. The respondents submitted that the bamboo contributes to their privacy, landscaping, garden design, and protection from smells or smoke (subs12(b3)). Privacy is noted as particularly important in relation to two levels of living/entertainment areas at the rear of their dwelling, but the bamboo can maintain privacy from the applicant's overview for both these areas, even if was pruned clear of the applicant's building.
12. As the bamboo provides little contribution to the local ecosystem and biodiversity, or intrinsic value to public amenity (subss 12(d), (f)), orders made for pruning of the bamboo would not result in a significant loss of environmental benefits.

Risk of Injury

1. The applicant claimed that the bamboo is a risk of injury, on the basis that "bamboo stems could fall and hit people as they walk by", along with small pieces of metal dislodged from the new aerial by bamboo. As noted by the respondents, there are no obvious characteristics of the bamboo that cause such concern with respect to risk of injury. While small leaf sheaths may regularly fall, it is very rare for stems to break, and the likelihood of genuine injury is minimal. Similarly, the likelihood of injury from small pieces of metal dislodged from the aerial is negligible. Overall, the bamboo poses a low and acceptable risk, and, therefore, this claim with respect to risk of injury is resolved and dismissed.
2. To support their claim for heavy pruning of the bamboo, the applicant noted the issue of ongoing maintenance required to clean up leaves continuously dropping onto their garden and surfaces below the tree.
3. In Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152 at [171], with respect to "annoyance or discomfort to the occupier of the adjoining land occasioned by nuisances of the third kind", Preston CJ states that this is not "damage to property on the land" within s 7 of the Act, and that "leaves, fruits, seeds, twigs, bark or flowers of trees blown onto a neighbours land might cause annoyance or discomfort to a neighbour, but unless they also cause damage to property on the neighbour's land they will not be actionable under s 7."
4. The issue of the maintenance impost from falling sticks and leaves is addressed in Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292, which, at [20], establishes the tree dispute principle: "… For people who live in urban environments, it is appropriate to expect that some degree of house exterior and grounds maintenance will be required in order to appreciate and retain the aesthetic and environmental benefits of having trees in such an urban environment. In particular, it is reasonable to expect people living in such an environment might need to clean the gutters and the surrounds of their houses on a regular basis. The dropping of leaves, flowers, fruit, seeds or small elements of deadwood by urban trees will not ordinarily provide the basis for ordering the removal of or intervention with an urban tree."
5. As with all similar previous cases, the submission with respect to leaves and other refuse, on the ground or in gutters, does not invoke the Act's jurisdiction.
6. During proceedings, the applicant withdrew his application under Part 2A of the Act as the bamboo was causing nether a severe obstruction to views from his dwelling, nor a severe obstruction of sunlight to a window of his dwelling. He also withdrew his claim for compensation of $1100, detailed in his application.
7. In any case, with respect to the $500 component of this claim which covered photos, videos and solicitor's fees for case preparation, Commissioners do not have powers to resolve such claims. Rather, they are dealt with by the Registrar or a Judge of the Court upon receipt of a Notice of Motion.
8. In their alternative orders, the respondents requested removal of the CCTV camera that is directed into their property. Notwithstanding that the camera was located well away from the common boundary, Commissioners again do not have powers to resolve such claims.

The tree

1. Some small branches from the tree are growing close to the respondents' electricity service wire, and the applicant claims this presents a genuine risk of injury. These wires are insulated and appear to be well attached to both the respondents' dwelling, and the pole in the street.
2. The respondents submit that the risk is very low, that only minor, if any, pruning is necessary, and that responsibility for any such pruning remain with Ausgrid, the electricity service providers.
3. I concur with the respondents position, that the risk associated with the service wires passing through the tree is negligible, and that no intervention is appropriate.
4. With respect to s 12 considerations, the tree contributes to protection from the sun, and from wind, to landscaping, to the amenity of the respondents' property, and to the immediate locality. It is visible from the street, and from neighbouring houses. It is likely to produce a conspicuous floral display, and thus have intrinsic value to public amenity (subss 12(b3), (e), (f)).

Conclusion

1. I have examined the site and have reached the following conclusions: 1. Though the damage may be considered minor, I have concluded that the bamboo is a cause of damage to the television aerial, and the jurisdiction of the Act is therefore engaged. 2. Ongoing intervention with the bamboo to prevent further damage in the near future, and beyond, can be completed while retaining privacy for the respondents, and without unduly compromising other benefits noted under s 12. 3. The issue of debris falling onto the applicant's property is addressed and resolved with the guidance of the tree dispute principle established in Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292. 4. The Magnolia tree poses a low and acceptable risk, and no action is available under s 7 of the Act.

Orders

1. The orders of the Court are: 1. Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall prune the height of the bamboo hedge, so that no part of it exceeds the height of a horizontal line, projected from the bottom edge of the corrugated roofing iron, at the north east corner of their house. 2. The respondents, at their expense, shall maintain the height of the bamboo hedge, so that at no time in the future, shall the hedge exceed the height specified in Order (1). 3. The respondents, at their expense, shall maintain the bamboo hedge, so that at no time after 30 days of the date of these orders, shall it grow beyond the current boundary fence line, within the applicant's property. 4. All pruning works shall be completed in compliance with Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016. 5. Should access be required to remove any refuse which falls into the applicant's property, the applicant shall grant the respondents access, upon receipt of at least 24 hours written notice.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 July 2021