Supreme Court Action For Damages And Removal Of Tree Roots

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28606, 7 June 1958, Page 4

Supreme Court Action For Damages And Removal Of Tree Roots

Alleging that the soil in his garden had become impoverished by the spread of elm tree roots from an adjoining property into his section in Hawford road, . a man sought an injunction in the Supreme Court yesterday against his neighbours to prevent them allowing the roots to spread. He sought the removal of the trees and the roots and in addition claimed £2OO general damages. The action was brought by Jack Roud, a company director (Mr B. J. Drake) against Harriet Olive Harvey Vincent, a widow, and Lynette Joyce Dunsterville Adams, a married woman, (Mr J. G. Leggat). Evidence had been given by two horticulturual experts when Mr Justice Hutchinson adjourned the case to Monday.

Roud claimed that the five trees on the defendants’ property, which adjoined his section, had a wide-spreading root system, and the roots had been, and were still spreading widely throughout his property. As the result the land was becoming impoverished, the fertility of the soil diminished, and he had suffered a loss of income! When asked to abate the nuisance the defendants took no action.

Mr Drake said that the plaintiff bought the property in 1951 and over the last 18 months or two years the spread of the trees’ roots had become really apparent to him. Over that period the spread of the roots had been so fast that the plaintiff was becoming totally deprived of the enjoyment of his property. The roots were apparently gross feeders and apart from the deterioration of soil there

had been physical destruction in the plantiff’s garden. The only building .on the property was a garage and the rest of the section was used for the growing of flowers, vegetables and plants, said counsel. Roud was approaching retirement and he and his housekeeper were keen gardeners. He had suffered over the past season a loss estimated at about £125.

The plaintiff was concerned with the removal of the trees, said Mr Drake. Various suggestions had been made for the solving of the problem, such as the digging of a trench between Roud’s land and the trees, but Roud claimed that this would not be an adequate way of preventing the roots from spreading. The trees had no particular aesthetic value; they had been allowed to get out of hand and their size constituted a nuisance in other ways, counsel submitted. Roud, in evidence, said that when the roots of the trees were cut a young tree would sprout up.

Maurice John Barnett, former superintendent of the parks and reserves department of the Christchurch City Council, said that because of the suckering propensities of the elms the soil on Roud’s section would be reduced to an impoverished state. If a building was erected on the property the trees could not be allowed to remain as the roots would sucker into the property. The digging of a trench might solve the problem but the roots severed by the trench would still be a potential danger. Witness said that the growth of the roots would be accelerated and they would tend to come to the surface the more the land was cultivated. The removal of the elms would not be a big job with modern appliances. To Mr Leggat, Barnett said that trench-digging would be only a temporary expedient.