A bitter legal dispute between neighbours in one of Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs has ended in court, with a judge ordering the removal of a problematic tree that threatened a $3 million property.
The case, heard in the NSW Land and Environment Court, centred on a willow myrtle tree located within a strata-managed apartment complex on Pine Street in Rozelle. Homeowners Sally Armati and David De Coster, who moved into their $3.35 million Mansfield Street home in June 2024, took legal action against the neighbouring strata after the tree began causing damage to their property.
Dispute Over Encroaching Tree
The couple argued that the tree had become a serious hazard, pressing against and buckling their timber fence while also displacing its base. They warned that the tree was at risk of falling, potentially causing significant property damage or even injury.
Despite repeated requests for its removal, the strata initially opted only to prune the tree, triggering a dispute that escalated into a legal battle.
Ms Armati and Mr De Coster subsequently filed a claim under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act, seeking both the removal of the tree and compensation for damage already caused to their fence and retaining wall.
On-Site Court Inspection
In an unusual move, the court conducted an on-site hearing, allowing Acting Commissioner David Galwey to personally inspect the tree and assess the impact on both properties.
During the inspection, the court observed clear evidence of damage, including visible buckling and displacement of the fence—facts that were not disputed by the strata.
Conflicting Expert Opinions
Both parties presented expert evidence from arborists and pest control specialists, offering differing assessments of the tree’s condition.
Experts engaged by the homeowners reported serious concerns, including termite activity, internal cavities, and structural weakness between the tree’s main stems. One consultant warned of a high risk of failure, particularly involving a co-dominant stem.
A separate pest control inspection also identified borer activity and moderate internal damage, raising further concerns about the tree’s structural integrity.
In contrast, experts hired by the strata initially found no major structural defects and recommended only minor pruning. However, a later assessment acknowledged fungal decay and described the tree as structurally poor, with an estimated lifespan of five to ten years.
Court Ruling
After reviewing the evidence, Acting Commissioner Galwey ruled in favour of the homeowners, concluding that the tree posed a genuine risk.
“The tree’s removal is required to prevent damage or injury,” he stated.
The court found that Ms Armati and Mr De Coster had made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue before pursuing legal action and had not contributed to the risk posed by the tree.
Importantly, the judge rejected the strata’s argument that the homeowners should bear the cost of removal, instead ordering the strata to take full responsibility.
Orders and Outcome
The court directed the strata to:
- Arrange and pay for the removal of the tree
- Plant a replacement tree
Meanwhile, both parties were ordered to share the cost of constructing a new timber fence to replace the damaged structure.
In his ruling, Commissioner Galwey also noted that the tree had no significant historical, cultural, or environmental value, and contributed little to local biodiversity—factors that supported the decision to remove it.
Wider Implications
The case highlights the complexities of neighbour disputes involving trees, particularly in high-value urban areas where property damage and safety concerns can quickly escalate.
It also underscores the importance of proper risk assessment and early resolution, as well as the legal responsibilities of property owners and strata bodies in managing vegetation that may pose hazards.
For the Rozelle couple, the ruling brings an end to months of uncertainty—and a step closer to protecting their home from further damage.
Images: DailyMail
English (United States) ·