In this matter, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) ordered the removal of a Chinese elm tree situated on or near a property boundary following a dispute between neighbouring landowners. The applicant alleged that the tree’s root system was encroaching onto their land and causing damage and interference.

The Tribunal accepted that the tree was responsible for substantial, ongoing, and unreasonable interference with the applicant’s use and enjoyment of their property, particularly due to invasive root growth. The key findings were:

  • The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that proposed alternative measures – such as the installation of root barriers or excavation works – were not viable long-term solutions. These options were found to be:
    • potentially unsafe in the circumstances,
    • unlikely to prevent continued root intrusion, and
    • significantly more costly than removing the tree altogether.
  • The respondents submitted that surrounding structures, including a swimming pool, would not be adversely affected by the tree’s roots. However, the Tribunal gave little weight to these submissions due to the absence of corroborating expert evidence.
  • In applying the relevant considerations under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), the Tribunal assessed factors including the nature and extent of the interference, the risk of ongoing damage, and the reasonableness of available remedies. It ultimately determined that no practical or reasonable alternative short of removal would adequately address the issue.

 

Orders Made

  • The Chinese elm tree is to be removed by, or under the supervision of, a suitably qualified and insured arborist.
  • The removal process must include stump grinding or appropriate treatment of the root system to prevent regrowth or further encroachment.
  • The costs of removal are to be shared equally between:
    • the applicant,
    • the adjoining property owners (first respondents), and
    • the second respondent.
  • No order was made in relation to legal costs.

 

Key Takeaways

  • QCAT may order complete removal where tree-related interference is ongoing and cannot be effectively mitigated by less invasive measures.
  • The Tribunal places significant weight on practical considerations, including cost, safety, and the likely effectiveness of proposed alternatives.
  • Assertions regarding the absence of damage or structural risk will carry limited weight without supporting expert evidence.
  • Apportionment of costs between parties remains common, even where one or more parties oppose removal.