{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
du Plooy v Taylor
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
du Plooy v Taylor
[2015] NSWLEC 1072
Tags
No tags available
Case
du Plooy v Taylor
[2015] NSWLEC 1072
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: du Plooy v Taylor [2015] NSWLEC 1072 Hearing dates:13 March 2015Decision date: 13 March 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 2Before: Durland AC Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage, injury, application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (2009) Cases Cited: Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Smith and Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 Category:Principal judgmentParties: C du Plooy (Applicant) D Taylor (Respondent) Representation: C du Plooy, litigant in person (Applicant) D Taylor, litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s):21094 of 2014This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.Judgment This is an application pursuant to section 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) concerning two trees located on a property at Beaumont Hills. The trees are identified on the application form as Tree 1 and Tree 2. The applicant (Mr du Plooy) is seeking orders for the removal of two Ironbarks located on the adjoining property to the rear. The property where the trees are growing is owned by Mr Taylor (the respondent). The provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the Trees Act require that I be satisfied that one or more of four tests are met with respect to each tree subject to the application, before I have jurisdiction to consider the application. These tests are: Has the tree caused damage to the applicant’s property? Is the tree now causing damage...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
du Plooy v Taylor
[2015] NSWLEC 1072
•
Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: du Plooy v Taylor [2015] NSWLEC 1072 Hearing dates:13 March 2015Decision date: 13 March 2015 Jurisdiction:Class 2Before: Durland AC Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); damage, injury, application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (2009) Cases Cited: Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592 Smith and Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 Category:Principal judgmentParties: C du Plooy (Applicant) D Taylor (Respondent) Representation: C du Plooy, litigant in person (Applicant) D Taylor, litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s):21094 of 2014This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.Judgment This is an application pursuant to section 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) concerning two trees located on a property at Beaumont Hills. The trees are identified on the application form as Tree 1 and Tree 2. The applicant (Mr du Plooy) is seeking orders for the removal of two Ironbarks located on the adjoining property to the rear. The property where the trees are growing is owned by Mr Taylor (the respondent). The provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the Trees Act require that I be satisfied that one or more of four tests are met with respect to each tree subject to the application, before I have jurisdiction to consider the application. These tests are: Has the tree caused damage to the applicant’s property? Is the tree now causing damage...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>