Homeowner Seeks $23k Over Neighboring Trees, But Court Says Proof Falls Short

Cracks, a damaged fence, and other assorted problems around a 130-year-old home all led one Australian homeowner to point the finger of blame at six trees growing next door.

Catherine Armstrong took neighboring property owners to court seeking removal of the trees and A$23,650.86 in repair costs, or about $16,500 USD.

According to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Armstrong’s home had cracks in its walls and ceiling, damaged veranda tiles and problems along the boundary fence.

The court did not dispute that damage existed. The issue was proving that the accused six trees actually caused the damage.

Evidence Did Not Tie Damage to the Trees

Under New South Wales’ Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act, the court must be satisfied that a tree has definitively caused, is causing, or is likely soon to cause property damage before it can make an order.

That connection was missing here. “No roots were identified in the front trench next to the damaged veranda” after excavation, according to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

Roots from one tree were found in another trench, but they were not near the cracks in the sandstone wall. The court also noted that no arborist mapped the roots or inspected the exposed trench.

The judge said simply showing nearby trees and property damage was not enough. Evidence needed to sufficiently connect roots from a particular tree to the specific damage being claimed.

Court Pointed to Other Possible Causes

The evidence also raised several other possible explanations, including clay soil, a watering system, raised garden soil and a leaking gutter.

The court found that moisture from the watering system, leaking gutter and raised soil was affecting the boundary fence and sandstone wall. It also found that the mounded garden bed, rather than the trees, had caused decay and deterioration along the fence.

Armstrong also argued that the trees could cause future damage, but the court found there was not enough evidence to establish that either.

Her application was refused on Sept. 15. The court said repairs and preventative work were still needed to protect the heritage home, but the evidence did not establish the connection required to order removal of the six trees under the Trees Act.