Background
Henry Wines and Homes NSW owned neighbouring properties on Rymill Road, Tregear. Mr Wines applied under Pt 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), alleging that running bamboo originating principally on Homes NSW’s land had spread beneath the boundary fence onto his land.
Mr Wines alleged that bamboo had blocked a terracotta sewer line in 2024, damaged or displaced a Colorbond fence, impaired use of his backyard, and posed a future risk to his dwelling. He sought removal and eradication works, rectification, reimbursement, access arrangements and his filing fee. Homes NSW’s arborist proposed staged treatment and removal works across both properties.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Austin granted the application in part. The Court found that the bamboo had previously blocked the applicant’s sewer pipe and was likely to cause further blockage, and that regrowth was likely to place pressure on and misalign the fence. Those findings engaged the Court’s jurisdiction under s 10(2)(a).
The Court did not find that the observed fence dents were caused by bamboo, nor that structural damage to the dwelling was likely in the near future. Diminished enjoyment of the backyard was not “damage to property” within the limited Pt 2 jurisdiction. The Court refused the claimed $3,500 reimbursement for 2024 plumbing work because Homes NSW had not been notified until April 2026 and had not contributed to the pipe damage or degradation by act or omission.
Homes NSW was ordered to pay $6,253.50 within 28 days for earlier bamboo-treatment costs and likely remedial costs. It was also ordered to provide contractor details and commence specified staged works within 60 days. The applicant was to engage the contractor for coordinated treatment on his property; the root-barrier proposal was not required.
Key Takeaways
- Bamboo prescribed as a “tree” can support Pt 2 orders where it causes, or is likely soon to cause, property damage.
- Evidence of actual or likely pipe blockage and fence displacement was sufficient, even though some claimed damage was not proved.
- Claims for historic loss may fail where the tree owner was not timely notified and did not contribute to the damage.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrower statutory remedy available for neighbour-tree disputes in NSW. Interference with enjoyment alone does not suffice; the applicant must establish damage to property or a qualifying likelihood of future damage.
It also shows the Court’s practical approach to invasive bamboo: coordinated treatment on both properties, over an extended period, may be necessary to prevent regrowth and recurring damage.