A property dispute between two neighbors in New South Wales, Australia, took a chemical turn when a court found that one homeowner had poisoned the trees in question, rather than the neighbors being responsible for their decline. Denis Cartledge, a resident of Tenterfield, had taken his neighbors, Ranjit and Baljit Dhadlie, to the NSW Land and Environment Court.
Mr. Cartledge, who has lived on his property for over 16 years, sought a court order for the Dhadlies to remove four large pine trees from their property. He claimed the trees, which stood approximately 20 meters tall and were situated about three meters from the shared boundary, were at the end of their lifespan and posed a risk of falling and damaging his home. He had been attempting to have the trees removed for years without success.
However, the court's investigation revealed a different story. Acting Commissioner David Galwey, an experienced arboricultural consultant, inspected the trees and discovered evidence of deliberate poisoning. He found that three of the trees had a drilled hole on their southern side, consistent with the pattern of dieback observed in the trees' crowns. "The pattern of dieback is consistent with the effects of poison being applied to trees through drill holes," Mr. Galwey stated in his judgment. He found it highly probable that poison had been applied, leading to the trees' decline and the presence of dead branches.
When questioned about the drill holes, Mr. Cartledge reportedly told the court that "Holes appear in trees all the time." Ultimately, Mr. Galwey determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Cartledge, or someone associated with him, had caused the dieback in the trees. He noted that Mr. Cartledge had provided no evidence to support his claims that the trees were likely to fall over.
As a result, the court ordered Mr. Cartledge to pay for any work required to prevent the dead branches from falling and to remove other hazardous branches. Mr. Galwey also indicated that the full effects of the poison might not yet be apparent, and further decline could occur. Consequently, Mr. Cartledge was ordered to pay for the removal of any additional deadwood that appears within the next 12 months. Both parties were instructed to obtain quotes from a tree contractor for the removal of dead branches from the poisoned trees, with Mr. Cartledge needing to provide at least seven days' notice for any pruning work he wished to undertake on the trees.
Mr. Cartledge informed the court that he was unable to afford the necessary tree work due to his financial circumstances. The court granted discretionary orders allowing him to complete the work only if he could afford it. "I have found that Mr Cartledge's actions led to the risk; and he now has the opportunity to mitigate the risk," Mr. Galwey stated. Under New South Wales law, the illegal destruction of trees can carry a maximum criminal penalty of $1.1 million, with additional daily fines for ongoing offenses.