Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 5, 28, 60, 82

Legislation Act 2001 s 179

Cases cited: Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621

Blackshaw & Evans v Campbell [2016] ACAT 80

Blackshaw & Evans v Campbell (No. 2) [2016] ACAT 108

B&T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar and Anor [2013] ACTSC 219

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic [1993] FCA 456; (1993) 43 FCR 280

Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP17

Gary Nigel Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation [2016] ACTCA 68

Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT [2011] ACTSC 207

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49

Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725

NSW Police Force v Newby [2009] NSWWCCPD 75

Rathchime Pty Ltd v Willat [2017] NSWCATAP 87

Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531

1. On 16 September 2016 the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) after considering a nuisance application (the nuisance application) made orders requiring Ms Campbell (the appellant) to remove nine evergreen trees growing on her property (the nuisance orders).[1] The trees are located on or adjacent to the boundary between the appellant's property and the property of Mr Blackshaw and Ms Evans (the respondents). The Tribunal ordered removal of the trees because it was satisfied that the trees were causing a nuisance to the respondents, and that removal of the trees was the only practicable option to remedy that nuisance.
2. The parties had been in dispute over the need to repair their boundary fence, and the trees situated on the boundary, since around 2010. In separate proceedings under the Common Boundaries Act 1981 between the same parties[2], the Tribunal on 14 May 2014 and 31 July 2014 had made orders for the construction of a replacement fence between the two properties (the first fence orders). Those orders had not been complied with, and the respondents applied to the Tribunal for orders varying the first fence orders to give effect to the 2014 decision of the Tribunal.
3. It was originally proposed that the Tribunal would hear the nuisance application and the application to update the first fence orders (both filed 3 December 2015), together. However, when the matters ultimately came on for hearing[3] on 24 June 2016 the appellant was unable to attend due to ill health. The Tribunal granted the appellant's application, through her solicitor, for the nuisance application to be adjourned to another date. The Tribunal proceeded however to hear the application to vary the first fence orders, and on 21 July 2016 made comprehensive orders varying the first fence orders to ensure that the fence would be constructed and costs shared, in principle as originally determined by the Tribunal (the varied fence orders).[4]

1. The Tribunal heard the nuisance application on 4 August 2016, having the preceding day dismissed a further adjournment application brought by the appellant. The decision was made, and written reasons given, on 16 September 2016. The Tribunal commenced:
   1. This application concerns a dispute between neighbours arising from nine cypress trees planted on the respondent's land close to the common boundary between the applicants' and respondent's respective properties. The trees are approximately 20 years old and have grown to approximately 10 metres in height. The trees have the potential to grow to between 20 and 30 metres in height.
   2. A survey plan shows that the centres of the trunks of the trees are between 18cm and 67cm from the boundary with the applicants' land. The trunks have an average diameter of 30cm.
2. The Tribunal was satisfied, and it was not disputed, that the trees were planted alongside the stormwater pipes which run on the respondents' land, on top of the sewerage pipes on the appellant's land, and close to the sewer line from the respondents' property. The trees were approximately ten metres high at the time of the hearing, and could grow to twice or three times that height. From photographs of the trees the Tribunal was able to estimate that the trees overhang the respondents' property by two to three metres, and in any event much more than they extend over the appellant's property.
3. After commencing by summarising the relevant principles of nuisance the Tribunal noted six bases on which the respondents asserted that the trees constituted an actionable nuisance and should be removed:
   1. ...

(a) The trees are preventing construction of a new boundary fence.

(b) The tree roots are causing damage to the [respondents'] stormwater drains.

(c) The tree roots are blocking the drains causing plumbing and other costs on the [respondents'] land.

(d) The trees are damaging the [respondents'] house by causing rising damp and have the potential to damage the sewerage pipes and the foundations of the house.

(e) The trees are encroaching onto the [respondents'] land in a way that is adversely impacting upon their use and enjoyment of their land.

(f) The trees are having an adverse impact on the [respondents'] solar access.

1. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the interference with the construction of the boundary fence amounted to an actionable nuisance. The Tribunal also was not satisfied on the evidence that the risk of property damage through rising damp or falling nuts or interference with solar access was such as would amount to nuisance.
2. In relation to interference with the drains, however, the Tribunal outlined the evidence from various expert and lay witnesses and concluded:

42. Having regard to the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that tree roots have on many occasions over the past six years invaded and blocked the stormwater main, although I accept that there is no evidence that roots are presently in the main or the extent of any present root invasion. The CCTV footage suggests the main is presently clear, although the [respondents] rely on the footage as showing where the roots were entering the drains before they were cleared out.

43. I accept also that there is no proof that the roots, previously or presently, are from the cypress trees. However I find on the balance of probabilities that the roots are from those trees. It is wholly improbable that the roots are from the street trees, which I estimate to be approximately 15 metres from the stormwater main where there are numerous cypress trees planted parallel and adjacent to the main.

1. The Tribunal noted the evidence and made findings of fact about the trees as follows:

52. ... The delegate to the Conservator noted that the cypress trees in issue "have an extensive root system and are opportunistic when it comes to clay or concrete pipes. If there's a crack or dislodgment of the service, roots will intrude into the pipe work regularly."

54. Also, there does not appear to be any alternative long-term practical solution such as a root guard on the [appellant's] land because there is no space between the tree trunks and the boundary to install the guard, either at all or in a manner that would not cause loss of all the root structure on the southern side of each trunk.

55. I have also taken into account the minimal if any environmental value of the trees, noting that the trees are recognised under the Tree Protection Act 2005 as a 'problematic tree species'.

56. I recognise that the [appellant] values the trees for the privacy and shade they offer her among other things, but she enjoys those benefits entirely at the [respondents'] cost.

1. In addition to interference with drains, the Tribunal was also satisfied that the trees' branches encroached upon the respondents' property, and that the respondents were entitled to abate that encroachment by trimming the trees. However, the Tribunal found that in the circumstances given the type, size and placement of the trees, trimming was not a realistic option:

68. There is no dispute that the trees encroach upon the [respondents'] land. The [respondents] are entitled to abate the encroachment by trimming the trees to the boundary. That is not a practical option where the centre of the trunks of the trees are between 18cm and 67cm from the boundary. To trim the trees to the boundary would almost certainly render the trees highly unstable and perhaps kill them.

1. The Tribunal considered whether the encroachment was so substantial as to amount to a nuisance at law, by "unduly interfering with a neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of his or her land."[5] In finding that the encroachment did constitute such a substantial interference the Tribunal stated:

70. In support of the claim that the encroachment is actionable, the [respondents] refer to the serious and significant manner in which the trees encroach on their land. They refer to dangerous branches overhanging their land where they would otherwise park their car and where they walk. They refer to the tree roots which prevent the [respondents] from completing paving works on their driveway. They refer to hard nuts that would land on their car if it were parked under the tree branches. They refer to trees 1 - 3 that overhang the roofline of their house.

71. They refer to the significant overshadowing of their house and garden caused by the trees along most of the northern boundary. It was difficult to determine what portion of the overshadowing is caused by the height of the trees as opposed to the encroachment of branches onto the [respondents'] land. However, as a matter of logic, the overhanging branches must contribute to at least some overshadowing particularly when the sun is overhead or primarily in the east or west.

72. Mr Kozaric, on behalf of the [appellant], did not suggest that the encroachment was acceptable in the sense of being within the bounds of 'reasonable give and take' between neighbours. Implicitly he agreed that the encroachment needed to be addressed, and sought an order that the [appellant] be able to access the [respondents'] property to trim the trees both as to their height and to address the encroachment of the branches onto the [respondents'] property. This, he said, was the preferable approach. He submitted that the [appellant] wants to trim the trees and "that has been denied".

1. The Tribunal then considered in detail the appellant's proposal that the encroachment be periodically abated by trimming both the height and overhanging branches. The Tribunal stated:

80. For several reasons I am satisfied that the trees should be removed, rather than trimmed and pruned to reduce their height and to remove their encroachment onto the [respondents'] land.

81. First, the cypress trees should never have been planted along the boundary between the [respondents'] and [applicant's] land. They have become very large trees and will continue to grow to a height of approximately 20m. They have been planted in a sewer easement on the [appellant's] land, and close to a stormwater easement on the [respondents'] land.

82. Second, the trees are unsuited for the [respondents'] and [appellant's] comparatively small blocks, both of which are little more than 500m2. In his decision dated 24 December 2014, the delegate of the Conservator gave approval for removal of tree 4 on the basis that "the location of the tree is inappropriate given its potential size and growth habit." The delegate also refused approval for major pruning or lopping because the criteria for that approval had not been satisfied. In other words, the only option is removal.

83. Third, trees 5- 9 are listed in Schedule 2 to the Tree Protection (Approval Criteria) Determination 2006 (No 2) as 'problematic tree species for the purposes of criterion 1(2) of the Determination. Criterion 1(2) of the Determination permits the Conservator to give approval for removal of a tree listed in Schedule 2, including a regulated tree, 'if the tree is located on a block of less than or equal to 1200m2'. The [respondents'] and [applicant's] blocks are less than half that size. In an email sent on 9 May 2016, the delegate of the Conservator explained that trees listed in Schedule 2 'are generally approved for removal as they have detrimental effects on energy, building structural integrity, solar access and services interference.'

84. Fourth, the [respondents] are entitled to trim the trees to their boundary, but that is not a practicable option. The trees have been planted so close to the boundary that to trim them to the boundary would leave nothing but the bare trunks, and would not resolve the ongoing problems with root invasion. In his email sent on 9 May 2016, the delegate of the Conservator said "generally residents are permitted to trim trees to the boundary however in this case it would not be wise as the cuts would be major and could cause irreversible damage to the trees." In his report dated 23 June and 8 July 2016 prepared for the [appellant], Stephen Griffiths, per Treeworks (ACT/NSW) Pty Ltd, states that to trim the trees to that extent would kill them. Mr Griffiths notes that the canopy would need to be 2.5m from the trunk, but that would only be possible if the [respondents] consented to continuing encroachment of the trees onto their land because the centres of the trunks of all nine trees are between 18cm and 67cm from the boundary.

85. Fifth, if trimming the trees was to be done, it would need to be done gradually over time. In an email sent to the [appellant] on 29 July 2016, a delegate of the Conservator commented on pruning options, noting that the trees' susceptibility to dieback would mean that the 10% method' should be used meaning successive pruning events limited to 10% of the tree to facilitate recovery. Where the trees are approximately 10m high, trimming or pruning to more appropriate heights and scales would take many years. Mr Griffiths noted that the first trim would need to be 'conservative'. He stated that the trees will be able to be trimmed to 1/3 of their height 'eventually'. Meanwhile, the numerous problems with root encroachment would continue.

86. I have concluded that the encroachment of the trees' branches is an unreasonable interference with the [respondents'] enjoyment of their land and that removal of the trees is the only practicable option to address that interference.

1. Being satisfied that the trees were causing a nuisance by virtue of the past incursion of tree roots into the drains, and by the overhanging of branches into the respondents' property, and being satisfied that removal of the trees was the only practicable option to address the current interference and risk of future interference, the Tribunal made orders that within 28 days all nine trees be removed by the appellant at her own cost, failing which the respondents would be entitled to remove the trees and be reimbursed their costs of doing so by the appellant.
2. On 13 October 2016 the appellant filed an application for appeal from that decision (the nuisance appeal).

1. In the nuisance appeal as originally filed the appellant sought that the orders of 16 September 2016 be set aside and that "the orders in appeal AA 44 of 2016 prevail." This was a reference to an appeal from the varied fence orders which the appellant had instituted on 12 August 2016. The appellant also sought as an interlocutory order, that the nuisance appeal be heard together with the varied fence orders appeal.
2. There is no appeal as of right from a decision of the Tribunal, an appeal lies only on 'a question of fact or law'. The questions referenced in the nuisance appeal were:
   • (a) Whether the Tribunal has the power, in an application other than an application under the Common Boundaries Act 1981, to order the removal of trees growing on or adjacent to the boundary between the appellant's property and the respondents' property, and to make consequential mandatory orders to that effect.
   • (b) Whether the Respondents were issue estopped from bringing [the nuisance application] by reason of the same, or substantially the same, issues having been heard and decided in 2014 and 2016.
3. Because the issues raised on appeal were limited to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Appeal Tribunal made directions for the parties to file written submissions and listed the matter for mention on 24 October 2016 to enable the parties to consider and make submissions on whether a face to face hearing was required.
4. At the mention on 24 October 2016, the appellant's solicitor sought that the matter be listed for mediation. The Tribunal encourages parties to resolve disputes by agreement wherever possible, by facilitating their participation in alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation, conciliation or neutral evaluation. While participation in these processes is usually undertaken at an early stage in the proceedings, it can occur at any point at which it would be productive. However, given the protracted history of this matter and underlying dispute, I did not see that referring the parties to mediation at this stage would do anything other than cause further delay and expense, contrary to the Tribunal's objectives of efficiency and timeliness as set out in section 5 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act). Further, it is a fundamental principle of mediation that the parties engage in the process in good faith.[6] I doubted that this prerequisite could be met in this case. I declined to refer the parties to an accredited mediator for mediation.
5. The solicitor for the appellant also sought that the hearing of the nuisance appeal be delayed until after a decision had been made in relation to the appeal from the varied fence orders. I was not persuaded that the resolution of the questions raised in the nuisance appeal depended in any respect upon the outcome of the varied fence orders appeal, and refused that application.
6. The nuisance appeal was listed for hearing on 21 November 2016, prior to the hearing of the varied fence orders appeal. As it transpired, I heard both appeals.
7. At the hearing on 21 November 2016, the appellant was represented by a different solicitor. The appellant had not filed the submissions as previously directed.
8. The new solicitor for the appellant commenced by seeking an adjournment of the hearing of both of the appeals. In a letter to the Tribunal tendered by the new solicitor at the hearing of the appeal, the previous grounds for the nuisance appeal were abandoned and different bases put forward for the assertion that the Tribunal had fallen into error. There remained no clarity as to the orders sought if the appeal was successful.
9. The matter was stood down to allow the appellant to instruct her new solicitor as to the orders she would seek if the nuisance appeal was successful. When the matter resumed, the solicitor for the appellant tendered a handwritten note of orders sought, being that orders 1-7 made by the Tribunal be set aside, the nuisance application dismissed, and the trees be kept trimmed by the appellant.
10. The solicitor for the appellant pressed the application for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeals. He said that the hearing of the appeals should be put off to another day, as he had only met with the appellant on 3 November 2014 and for various reasons had only the previous week examined the Tribunal file. He advised that he had taken some time to get across the two different appeals and was not well prepared to advance the appellant's case.
11. The appellant's solicitor submitted that the appellant needed the adjournment so that she would have the opportunity to properly prepare her case, and that it would be unfair to require her to proceed to a hearing of the appeals that day.
12. I declined to adjourn the hearing of the appeals because of the following matters.
13. First, the appellant had engaged the appeal jurisdiction of the tribunal. It is incumbent upon a party who engages the tribunal's jurisdiction to prepare their matter in a timely fashion. The appellant had been legally represented for the bulk of the period leading to the hearing, including retaining counsel. There had been directions hearings at which directions were made to prepare the appellant's case. Those directions were not complied with, with no explanation other than that the appellant had changed solicitors. In this respect, it must be remembered that the tribunal is a forum which does not require that parties will have legal representation. The procedures of the tribunal are designed with the self-represented litigant in mind. The majority of matters in the tribunal, even in the appeal jurisdiction, are conducted, effectively and efficiently, by persons representing themselves. I was satisfied that the appellant had been given adequate opportunity to prepare her appeal, that opportunity had not been taken.
14. Secondly, the appellant was present at the hearing of the appeal, with her new solicitor, she was currently able to provide instructions, and had first provided instructions two weeks earlier. The solicitor had read the Tribunal file and prepared new draft grounds of appeal. I considered it was possible for the hearing of oral submissions to proceed that day, albeit with provision for further written submissions to be filed after the event.
15. Thirdly, I had no confidence that, if an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal was granted, the hearing would be any more likely to proceed on a future occasion.
16. Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal proceeded that day with oral submissions of the parties. To accommodate the difficulties experienced by the appellant's new solicitor, and to give the respondents a fair opportunity to respond to arguments which they had heard only for the first time that day, I directed that the appellant file an amended application for appeal setting out the new grounds relied upon in the nuisance appeal, and written submissions by 23 November 2016, and gave the respondents leave to file written submissions in reply.
17. The appellant filed the amended application for appeal and written submissions as directed.
18. The respondents, who represented themselves throughout the proceedings, filed their submissions in reply in accordance with the Appeal Tribunal's directions. In those submissions they expressed concern at the procedural irregularities in the conduct of the matter. They queried why the appellant's documentation for the appeal was submitted multiple times, including completely new bases for appeal. There is no easy or satisfactory answer to this query. The appellant's conduct of her appeal was disorganized and non-compliant, notwithstanding that she was most of the time assisted by legal representation, including having retained the services of a barrister. In the end it is in the discretion of the Appeal Tribunal how to balance the competing imperatives of efficiency, fairness, informality and justice when confronted with non-compliance with directions or adjournment requests. At times, erring on the side of caution by giving priority to the requirement to provide natural justice results in delay and administrative cost to the other parties, and to the Tribunal.

1. The amended nuisance appeal sought that the orders of 16 September 2016 be set aside, and the nuisance application instead be dismissed.[7] The amended application for appeal asserted 11 errors of law and fact. These were expanded upon in the written submissions.

1. Section 82 of the ACAT Act provides that the Appeal Tribunal may either deal with the appeal as a new application (a hearing de novo/new hearing) or as a review (rehearing).[8]
2. Given that the matter had at first instance been conducted as a full hearing, at which both parties were legally represented, and taking into account the nature of the issues raised on appeal, the matter was dealt with as a review/rehearing.
3. The principles applying to the conduct of such an appeal are set out in paragraph 22 of the decision of Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49:

... for a rehearing, the appeal tribunal relies upon the evidence given to the original tribunal, supplemented by any additional evidence which the parties are given leave to adduce. The appeal tribunal's findings on questions of law are determinative. The appeal tribunal will not lightly substitute its own findings of fact for the original tribunal's primary findings of fact, but may be less constrained in relation to drawing inferences of fact. The appeal tribunal is not at liberty to interfere with a discretionary decision unless satisfied that there has been an error in the exercise of discretion. (Footnotes omitted)

1. There are multiple authorities setting out the bases on which a superior court or a tribunal conducting such a review/rehearing may interfere with findings of fact or law[9], or an exercise of discretion.[10] It is within this framework that the Appeal Tribunal approached this appeal.
2. The grounds of appeal and written submissions raised questions which could broadly be categorized as challenging:
   • (a) the factual findings about the tree roots;
   • (b) the factual findings about the overhanging branches;
   • (c) the conclusion that either branches or roots or both constituted nuisance; and
   • (d) the decision that the trees should be removed rather than other action being taken.
3. It is convenient to address the grounds, and the arguments made by the appellant, in this order.

The Tribunal erred in law in finding, in the absence of evidence "it is wholly improbable that roots are from the Street trees, which I estimate to be approximately 15 metres from the stormwater pipe."

1. The Tribunal noted at paragraph 43 that there was 'no proof' that the offending roots had been from the cypresses, and proceeded to infer that fact from the other established facts. This is not a finding made in the absence of evidence, but rather the entirely regular drawing of an inference of fact from other established facts. It was open to the Tribunal to make that inference. To the extent that the Appeal Tribunal might also draw inferences of fact, it would reach the same conclusion. There is no error in this finding.

The Tribunal erred in law in accepting the speculation of the respondents that the tree roots may break into the sewer pipes in the absence of evidence

1. Having concluded that the cypresses were responsible for the past incursions into the stormwater drains, it was open to the Tribunal to infer that such invasions were likely to occur in the future in relation to the sewerage pipes given their proximity, construction and age. The Appeal Tribunal would make the same inference. There is no error in this finding.

The Tribunal erred in law because there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's findings at paragraph 54 that the installation of root guard was impracticable, or that more radical solutions, such as replacing the pipe with an impervious material were not considered

1. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal had erred by relying upon its own expertise rather than evidence in making the findings at paragraph 54. It was conceded that there was no evidence put before the Tribunal by the appellant or from any other source that root guard would be a practical solution. Nonetheless it is argued by the appellant that the Tribunal was in error in finding in the absence of evidence that root guard was unviable and would have to be constructed on the boundary. The respondents submit that common sense would suggest that root guard being installed at the boundary was not an option, as it would destabilise each tree in the same way as cutting off the branches at the boundary.
2. Section 28 of the ACAT Act provides that the Tribunal may inform itself in any manner in which it sees fit. This includes, where appropriate, relying upon its own expertise and applying a healthy dose of common sense. It was open to the Tribunal to draw upon its own knowledge to consider possible means of managing the incursion of roots, and then to apply that knowledge to discount those means, given the absence of any evidence that root guard would be effective. There was no error in the Tribunal's findings on this point.

**The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the mere overhanging of the branches on to the respondents' property, amounted to a nuisance as being an 'unreasonable' interference in their use of the land, particularly in the absence of any evidence as to the use the respondents put to that piece of land

The Tribunal erred in law and in fact in finding that reasonable trimming of the trees on the part of the respondents would not have alleviated any problems

The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the only practical solution to the interference caused by the overhanging was the complete removal of all of the trees**

1. Contrary to the appellant's submission, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the location of the tree branches, and the impact that the branches had on the use of that area of the land by the respondents, which the Tribunal considered at paragraph 70. The Tribunal noted at paragraph 72 that the then lawyer for the appellant acknowledged implicitly that mitigation action was required. It was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the branches were an unreasonable encroachment which amounted to a nuisance. The Appeal Tribunal reaches the same conclusion, particularly when regard is had to the approximate area covered by the branches, in relation to the size of the respondents' land.
2. At paragraphs 68, and 84-86, the Tribunal considered the proposal to trim the trees and was satisfied that the encroachment could not be alleviated by trimming. The appellant did not develop any argument as to why this conclusion is said to be affected by error of law or fact. On appeal the appellant submitted that the overhanging trees were "part of the 'give and take' of ordinary suburban living", that the respondents had been aware of the trees when they bought their house, and that if there were limbs in danger of falling, the respondents "had their remedies in abatement."
3. The appellant's submissions do not disclose any error by the Tribunal. In particular, in relation to the question of abatement, there was evidence before the Tribunal that if the respondents were to abate the nuisance caused by the branches by trimming to the boundary, this would both destabilise and likely kill the trees. The Tribunal was correct to discount trimming of the trees as a solution to the nuisance caused by overhanging branches. The Appeal Tribunal, as set out in more detail at paragraph 51 of this decision, reaches the same conclusion.
4. The appellant has not demonstrated any error in the Tribunal's conclusions on this point.

The Tribunal erred in fact in finding that the benefits the appellant had from the trees were entirely at the respondents' cost

1. This comment was made by the Tribunal at paragraph 56. While it is a finding with which the appellant may take issue, no argument was put by the appellant either before the Tribunal or upon appeal to demonstrate the cost which the trees posed to her. In any event, this aside by the Tribunal was in no way material to the outcome in the matter, which was reached after systematically determining the facts and applying the law of nuisance to those facts.

**The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the actions of the respondent in allowing the trees to remain was other than a reasonable use of the land

The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the actions of the tree roots amounted to nuisance at law**

1. The respondents submitted "a question of reasonableness is at the heart of the tort" of nuisance. It was submitted that the appellant is simply letting the existing trees live, which is a reasonable use of her property, and that the Tribunal therefore erred in finding that the presence of the trees amounted to a nuisance.
2. The Tribunal discussed the 'reasonableness' aspect of the law of nuisance at paragraphs 13 - 15, and 46. The Tribunal then applied that test to the facts as found at paragraph 47, in relation to the tree roots, and at paragraphs 72 and 86 in relation to the branches, in each respect concluding that the claim in nuisance was made out.
3. For the reasons set out above the Appeal Tribunal is not satisfied that there was any error in the facts found by the Tribunal. Applying the legal test for nuisance to those facts, the Appeal Tribunal reaches the same conclusion as the Tribunal. Given the type, size, location and dimensions of the trees and the size of the respondents' land, the physical extent of branches overhanging and impact of that encroachment on use of neighbouring land, the past history of pipe blockages which had caused flooding, the finding that the trees were the source of those blockages, the risk of future blockages and consequent risk of damage, the Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that a reasonable occupier given notice of these concerns would take action to prevent both the substantial encroachment of overhanging branches and ongoing risk of another root incursion. In each respect, the only effective and practicable preventative action was, and remains, removal of the trees. The appellant had been well aware of these events and ongoing concerns, but no effective preventative action had been taken. It follows that the appellant had permitted a nuisance to occur, and the respondents were entitled to seek relief from the Tribunal.

**The Tribunal erred in law in finding that, if the actions of the tree roots amounted to nuisance, that the appropriate response was to order the removal of any of the trees, let alone all nine, particularly when the Tribunal had accepted "there is no evidence that roots are presently in the main or the extent of any present root invasion. The CCTV suggests the main is presently clear..." (paragraph 42) and further "I accept that there is no proof that the roots, previously or presently, are from the Cypress trees (paragraph 43)

The Tribunal erred in law in finding that the only practical solution to the risk of the roots causing damage was the complete removal of all of the trees**

1. Having at paragraph 51 considered all of the factors in relation to the tree roots, the Tribunal at paragraph 52 concluded that on balance it was appropriate to order the removal of the trees.
2. The decision as to what orders should be made having found that the trees amounted to a nuisance was a discretionary one. The ways in which a discretionary decision might be affected by error are set out in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 and Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621. The phrasing of this ground of appeal suggests that the error alleged is a failure by the Tribunal to give sufficient weight to certain evidence. Perusal of the Tribunal's reasons demonstrates the Tribunal considered the current situation, and noted that there was no absolute proof that the trees which had been the cause of drain blockage were in fact from the cypresses. The Tribunal took the referenced matters into account in inferring, from the other known facts[11] that the cypresses were responsible for the past blockages and were likely to cause future blockages. It was open to the Tribunal to draw that inference. It is clear from the reasons that in reaching these conclusions, the Tribunal considered and gave weight to the evidence adverted to by the appellant.
3. In relation to the conclusion that the appropriate solution to the risk of root damage was to order removal of the trees, the appellant did not demonstrate to the Tribunal that there was any other practicable preventative action for the risk of future root incursion. For the reasons set out at paragraph 50 of this decision, the Appeal Tribunal reaches the same conclusion. The Appeal Tribunal is not satisfied that there was any error in the Tribunal's findings in this regard.

1. The argument that the Tribunal gave insufficient weight to the evidence put forward by the appellant appears at numerous points in the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant. The appellant also submitted that the Tribunal erred in preferring the respondents' expert witnesses over those of the appellant 'without providing sufficient explanation'.
2. This submission raises the vexed question of how comprehensive the Tribunal must be when providing oral or written reasons for its decisions. Decisions in civil applications, such as the nuisance orders, are rarely the subject of written reasons.[12] In this case the Tribunal reserved its decision and chose to give written reasons. It is accepted that reasons should demonstrate the Tribunal's reasoning process by setting out the relevant findings of fact and the evidence on which the findings are based, identifying the relevant law and explaining how the law has been applied to the facts to result in the orders that are made. This is not to say that the Tribunal must provide a doctoral thesis to justify every decision made.
3. There are many authorities in relation to the adequacy of reasons in the judicial context. In Gary Nigel Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation [2016] ACTCA 68 the Court of Appeal stated:

It is unnecessary for a judge to refer to all evidence led in proceedings or to indicate which of it is accepted or rejected: Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728 per Samuels JA. Nor is it necessary for reasons to be lengthy or elaborate: Ex Parte Powter; Re Powter [1945] NSWStRp 35; (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 1 at 5. No mechanical formula can be given in determining what reasons are required: Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW [1997] 48 NSWLR 430 at 443 per Meagher JA.

1. These authorities are increasingly applied in a Tribunal context, where some decisions historically made by Courts are now made.[13] While the public interest in the provision of reasons remains the starting point[14], the objectives of timeliness and efficiency mandated by section 5 of the ACAT Act oblige the Tribunal to approach the preparation of written or oral reasons in a proportionate manner.
2. In NSW Police Force v Newby [2009] NSWWCCPD 75 Keating J stated:

To succeed in having the Arbitrator's decision set aside on this ground, the Police Force must demonstrate not only that the reasons are inadequate, but that their inadequacy discloses that the Arbitrator failed to exercise his statutory duty to fairly and lawfully to determine the application (YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247). Reasons must set out the judge's (Arbitrator's) reasoning process and merely incorporating counsel's submissions is not appropriate (Sourlos v Luv a Coffee Lismore Pty limited & anor [2007] NSWCA 203 at [30]).

The standard by which the adequacy of reasons must be determined is relative to the nature of the decision itself and the decision-maker (Mayne Health Group t/as Nepean Private Hospital v Sandford [2002] NSWWCCPD 6). It is not necessary for an Arbitrator to refer to every piece of evidence (Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited (in Liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156; Ainger v Coffs Harbour City Council [2005] NSWCA 424).

When considering the adequacy of the reasons the decision must be read as a whole (Beale v GIO (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 at 443-444 ('Beale')). A Presidential member on review is not required to comb through the Arbitrator's findings and reasons in search of error (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wu Shu Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259). In Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 ('Soulemezis') McHugh JA (as he then was) stated at 280:

If an obligation to give reasons for a decision exists its discharge does not require lengthy or elaborate reasons: Ex parte Powter; Re Powter [1945] NSWStRp 35; (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 1 at 5: 63 WN 34 at 36.

1. The cautions expressed in Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic [1993] FCA 456; (1993) 43 FCR 280 as to overzealous scrutiny of reasons for administrative decisions also resonate in the quasi-judicial Tribunal context. It is not the role of the Appeal Tribunal to pore over written or transcribed oral reasons searching for possible inadequacies but rather to consider whether, taken as a whole, the reasons disclose that the Tribunal fell into error. A Tribunal at first instance should not feel obliged to slavishly record every detail of the evidence given by every witness, or to set out fine nuances or points of distinction, in order to demonstrate to a hypothetical Appeal Tribunal or Court that due consideration and weight has been given. The primary audience for reasons remains the parties, and reasons which set out the necessary elements in a manner proportionate to the context of the matter will ordinarily be sufficient.
2. In this matter the Tribunal made findings having reserved its decision after an eight hour hearing. Written reasons extending to 24 pages were provided, which detailed expert and other evidence. The expert witnesses' opinions were different, but not absolutely contradictory. It is clear from the reasons that the Tribunal considered the expert's opinions, including not only the views expressed but also the factual basis for the opinions, such as the time at which the experts had attended the property. Expert evidence is provided to assist a Tribunal in making findings of fact, not to replace the Tribunal in that task. In this case the Tribunal weighed up the competing views and reached conclusions about the facts, as it was required to do, and then set out its consideration over a number of paragraphs. I am not satisfied that the written decision in relation to the expert witnesses discloses any failure to consider evidence or error by the Tribunal.
3. The appellant also submitted that the Tribunal erred in ordering removal of the trees because the requirements for a quia timet injunction were not made out. This submission misunderstands the basis on which the Tribunal made its orders. The Tribunal was satisfied that a nuisance had occurred in the past by way of the roots and branches, and currently by way of the branches. The cause of action was complete, and accordingly the stricter requirements of 'imminent risk of substantial or irreparable damage' for a quia timet injunction were inapplicable. It was open to the Tribunal in the exercise of discretion to order the trees be removed to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance which had previously occurred and could re-occur (in relation to the roots) and was ongoing (in relation to the overhanging branches).

1. The appellant has failed to satisfy the Appeal Tribunal that there is any error of fact or law in the nuisance decision. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

[1] Matter XD 1362/2015 published as Blackshaw & Evans v Campbell (No. 2) [2016] ACAT 108

[2] Matter XD 323/2014 published as Blackshaw & Evans v Campbell [2016] ACAT 80

[3] After a number of delays which are detailed in the Tribunal's decisions

[4] The second fence orders are also the subject of a separate appeal by the appellant file number AA 44/2016

[5] Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152

[6] At the least, this requires a willingness to participate in the process with an open mind, put forward realistic options and give real consideration to options put forward by others

[7] The appellant apparently having abandoned the idea that the trees be kept trimmed by her

[8] The Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT [2011] ACTSC 207 at [14]; B&T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar and Anor [2013] ACTSC 219 at [11] & [12]

[9] For example see Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531

[10] House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

[11] such as the type and location of the cypresses and other trees, the history and location of blockages

[12] There is an obligation on the Tribunal to provide written reasons when reasons are requested in accordance with section 60 of the ACAT Act, and the content of such reasons is prescribed by that section and section 179 of the Legislation Act 2001

[13] See for example Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP17; Rathchime Pty Ltd v Willat [2017] NSWCATAP 87

[14] See Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 (at 728)