Homeowner demanded his neighbours cut down their huge, dying trees. But then the dispute turned to poison – and an expert pointed the finger at HIM
A New South Wales court threw out a homeowner's bid to force his neighbours to fell four dying trees after an arboricultural expert found evidence that the man himself had been poisoning them. Denis Cartledge, of Tenterfield, had argued the 20-metre pine trees on the Dhadlie family's adjoining property were nearing the end of their lives and posed a risk to his home from falling dead branches. Instead, the Land and Environment Court found he was most likely responsible for causing the very decline he complained about, undermining his case and shifting liability back onto him.
Acting Commissioner David Galwey, an experienced arboricultural consultant, discovered deliberately drilled holes in three of the trees that matched the pattern of dieback in their crowns, concluding poison had probably been applied through the holes. Cartledge, who has lived at the property for 16 years, dismissed the holes by claiming they occur naturally in trees, but the court ruled on the balance of probabilities that he or an associate caused the damage. He was ordered to pay for removing hazardous dead branches, with further deadwood clearance required after 12 months, though discretionary orders mean he only has to carry out the work if he can afford it, citing financial hardship. Under NSW law, illegally destroying trees carries fines of up to $1.1 million plus $10,000 per day.
- Man sued neighbours to remove trees he'd secretly been poisoning
- Court found drill holes and poison caused the trees' dieback
- He must pay for branch removal, but only if he can afford it
New here? Start with this
Denis Cartledge lives next door to the Dhadlie family in Tenterfield, New South Wales, and had asked a court to force them to cut down four tall pine trees on their land, arguing the dying trees were a danger to his house. Cases like this go to the Land and Environment Court, which handles disputes between neighbours over trees.
During the case, an arboricultural expert examined the trees and found drilled holes that lined up with the pattern of damage in their branches, suggesting someone had deliberately poisoned them. This raised the possibility that the trees were not simply old and dying, but had been harmed on purpose, which changed the direction of the dispute significantly.
The case matters because it shows how tree disputes between neighbours, which are common in Australia, can escalate into serious legal and financial consequences. Under New South Wales law, deliberately destroying or damaging trees without permission can result in very large fines, and the party found responsible for harming trees can end up liable for the costs of dealing with them.