Clarke v Murray [2016] QCAT 203
CITATION: Clarke v Murray [2016] QCAT 203
PARTIES: Richard Ernest Clarke
(Applicant)
v
Russell Murray
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: NDR101-16
MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Senior Member Brown
DELIVERED ON: 20 June 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1. The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION – tree dispute – where trees
located on applicant’s land – where applicant
seeks orders preventing respondent neighbour
from interfering with applicant’s trees – where
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction – where proceeding
misconceived or lacking in substance
Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and
Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), ss 45, 46, 59 62
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Act 2009 (Qld), s 47
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Richard Clarke says that his neighbour, Russell Murray, has been cutting
the trunks of the bamboo trees situated on Mr Clarke’s land. Mr Clarke has
filed an application in the Tribunal seeking an order that Mr Murray cease
cutting the bamboo and seeking compensation for the damage to the
bamboo.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
[2] Disputes in relation to trees are governed by the Neighbourhood Disputes
(Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (NDA). A neighbour may apply
to the Tribunal for an order relating to a tree1 if the neighbour’s land is
affected by a tree.2 A tree includes bamboo.3 Land may be affected by a
tree in specified circumstances.4
[3] The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of dispute involving a tree is
enlivened when a neighbour’s land is affected by a tree situated on
adjoining land.
[4] The difficulty facing Mr Clarke is that his application does not relate to a tree
on Mr Murray’s land. Rather, Mr Clarke seeks orders relating to what he
says is the interference by Mr Murray with the bamboo on Mr Clarke’s land.
[5] The Tribunal is a creature of statute and derives its jurisdiction from, among
other enabling Acts of the Queensland parliament, the NDA. Mr Clarke’s
land is not affected by a tree for the simple reason that the bamboo is on
his land. Mr Clarke therefore cannot apply to the Tribunal for an order
relating to the bamboo. The NDA does not apply to the particular dispute
the subject of Mr Clarke’s application. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in
respect of the dispute.
[6] Mr Clarke may well have a justifiable grievance as a result of what he says
are the actions of Mr Murray. Any remedy available to Mr Clarke is not one
he can seek in the Tribunal.
[7] Where a proceeding is misconceived or lacking in substance, the Tribunal
may dismiss the proceeding.5
[8] The application must be dismissed and I order accordingly.
1 NDA, s 62.
2 Ibid, s 59(a).
3 Ibid, s 45(1).
4 Ibid, s 46.
5 QCAT Act, s 47.
-- 2 of 2 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCAT/2016/203