Background
Faida Hanna applied under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) for orders concerning three mature tallowwoods on Peter Papas’s adjoining commercial property in Bexley. She sought their removal and rectification of a boundary retaining wall, alleging excessive debris, falling branches, and root damage to the wall and her dwelling at 103 Stoney Creek Road.
The evidence showed problems with the dwelling’s gutters, drainage, subfloor, footings and structural elements. Engineers identified several possible causes of the defects, including reactive soil, poor drainage, wet weather, age and construction issues. The trees had also been pruned without council consent in 2025.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Galwey granted the application only to the extent of targeted pruning and continuing maintenance. Dead and defective branches, together with three identified overextended or structurally concerning branches over Ms Hanna’s property, were likely to fall in the near future and could cause property damage or injury. That satisfied the statutory threshold for orders.
The Court declined to order removal of the trees, repairs to the retaining wall, or relief for debris and alleged dwelling-root damage. Ordinary leaf and twig fall required routine property maintenance. The retaining wall’s condition was chiefly attributable to poor and piecemeal construction, although roots may have contributed. The evidence did not establish a sufficient site-specific causal connection between the trees’ roots and the dwelling defects; drainage and other building issues were principal factors.
Key Takeaways
- A credible risk from dead or defective branches can justify pruning orders without requiring tree removal.
- Tree debris ordinarily does not warrant relief where regular gutter and property maintenance is reasonably expected.
- General guidance about tree proximity is not a substitute for site-specific evidence linking particular roots to particular structural damage.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court’s preference for proportionate tree-management orders where mature trees provide substantial amenity and environmental benefits. Even after jurisdiction is engaged by one risk, the remedy must remain supported by the evidence on each alleged source of damage.
Owners alleging root damage should obtain specific investigative evidence and address independent drainage and structural defects. Here, the Court ordered compliant pruning within 30 days and every three years from July 2029, at Mr Papas’s expense.