Australia, June 27 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 26:

1. Before the Court today is a Notice of Motion filed on 13 March 2025, through which the Applicant Mr Ceeney seeks "costs" and "compensation for ... damages" arising out of a tree dispute matter that was determined by the judgment of Acting Commissioner Galwey on 12 February 2025: Ceeney v Rutter [2025] NSWLEC 1175.

2. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the Applicant, Ross Douglas Ceeney, dated 11 February 2025, and a further affidavit of the Applicant dated 6 May 2025. Both those affidavits were read without objection. The First Respondent Mr Rutter read two affidavits both dated 12 May 2025. Mr Rutter had also supplied the Court with written submissions dated 13 May 2025, and Mr Ceeney had filed his own written submissions in response to the Respondent's submissions dated 19 May 2025.

3. The parties are self-represented litigants. They represented themselves at the hearing before Acting Commissioner Galwey, which was brought under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (Trees Act). The Applicant claimed that certain trees on the Respondents' land posed a risk of damage to his land, and had caused actual damage.

4. In his judgment of 12 February 2025, the Acting Commissioner made the following orders:

1) The application is upheld to the extent of the following orders.

2) Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the Respondents are to remove, or engage and pay for a suitably experienced contractor to remove, all oleander trees along their rear boundary.

3) Within 30 days of the date of these orders, and then annually in March thereafter, the respondents, or a suitably experienced contractor they engage at their expense, are to prune all palm trees along their rear boundary to remove all dead and dying fronds along with any developing fruit.

4) The Applicant is to allow any access required to his property on reasonable notice and at reasonable times of the day for the works in Orders (2) and (3).

5. During the course of the argument before me today, Mr Ceeney clarified that in respect to the claim he made for damages, he was in effect seeking to relitigate the claim that had already been part of the claim before the Acting Commissioner. The Acting Commissioner found in his judgment that although plant material and fronds from trees on the Respondents' property had fallen onto the Applicant's property, they had not yet caused damage: Ceeney v Rutter at [10]. I therefore indicated to the parties that given the issue of damage and compensation had been before the Acting Commissioner and had been dealt with by him, it did not appear appropriate to seek to reopen the same subject matter before me by means of this Notice of Motion. The First Respondent made a submission to similar effect in his written submissions.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1970b2334649a4f4032edcf0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.