Man ordered to pay neighbours $7k for cutting their trees without permission

A man has been ordered to pay his neighbours almost $7500 after he cut their trees without permission. Photo / 123rf

One man's desire to have more sunlight stream through his bedroom window saw him take to the line of trees in his neighbour's yard with his tools, reducing it to stumps.

But a shadow quickly formed over the man's newfound light, when his devastated neighbours took him to the small claims court over the unsolicited pruning.

The man was found to have trespassed and has been ordered to pay his neighbours $7478 to replace the trees and for legal costs.

In the recently released Disputes Tribunal decision, it said the man, referred to as only HL, had "practically removed" seven Ake Ake trees and a number of Elaeagnus shrubs on the property of his neighbours, named LG and KG in the decision.

HL admitted he cut the trees but claimed he only did so because he and LG agreed they needed to be topped, and that LG had selected the height to which they were cut.

But LG strongly denied such an exchange, stating he had only acknowledged they were overhanging HL's property and required trimming.

"LG said there was a discussion about how they were to do it, that HL had a chainsaw and that LG would help him trim the overhanging branches and pay the tip fees," the decision said.

But instead, LG and his wife left their property for 45 minutes, on a day in September last year, and during that time HL cut the trees and shrubs without their permission, the tribunal found.

HL was not able to prove his version of events, and the tribunal accepted LG's evidence that the discussion he had with HL was solely about trimming back the overhanging branches.

"It does not make sense that LG would agree to taking height off the top of the trees, as that would result in a loss of privacy for him and his wife. The only party who benefited from the trees being topped was HL."

The tribunal was provided with photographs and said based on those it was impossible to say the trees had merely been topped.

"Topping denotes removal of the top part of the trees, but implies that some, or perhaps most, of the tree is left to grow. The pictures show that in some cases there are only stumps left, while other trees show some longer level of trunk with trimmed branches."

LG said it looked as though "someone has come along in a hurry with a chainsaw", which the tribunal also accepted.

HL told the tribunal the trees were cut at varying levels because that was consistent with the minimum amount of trimming required to let light into his back bedroom window.

But the tribunal said his argument did not make sense given the Ake Ake were completely denuded of leaves and branches.

"The pictures do not show that the trees have been trimmed, but rather practically removed."

HL further claimed that after he had taken down the trees, LG asked him to trim the Elaeagnus shrubs.

The tribunal accepted LG's evidence that no such conversation took place and that the shrubs had also been cut while he and his wife were away from their property.

HL was found to have trespassed and converted LG and KG's property.

He was ordered to pay his neighbours $6,060.50 for the replacement of the Ake Ake trees and Elaeagnus shrubs, and $1,417.50 in legal costs.