Tree of strife

Tribunal slams claim made due to controversial fig

IT’S the fig tree that ended a friendship but a tribunal found it didn’t block any pipes.

In a long-running neighbourhood dispute that was finally put to rest by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) last month, Richard and Margaret Woolcock were cleared of having to shell out thousands to their Robina neighbours, who claimed a rogue fig tree blocked their drains.

Michael and Roseanna Cacopardo, who have lived in Trinity Place since 2000, claimed the fig tree that was 200mm inside the boundary of the Woolcocks’ home had ru- ined their concrete path, blocked pipes and forced them to undertake an elaborate renovation of their ensuite bathroom.

When the Woolcocks refused, claiming the drains were already damaged, their neighbours lodged a claim with QCAT for $20,353.17.

The Woolcocks, who moved into the Robina locale in 2002, removed the tree in July 2016, the decision published last month states.

However the tribunal member dismissed the application.

QCAT member McLean Williams agreed with the Woolcocks that the Cacopardos has brought an “opportunistic claim” by trying to get their neighbours pay the cost of their bathroom renovations “... by falsely attributing the need for it to the fact of the tree root blockage”.

In a decision handed down in Brisbane more than 12 months after legal action was lodged, QCAT found while tree roots were found in the PVC pipes, they originated from a plumbing failure due to soil movement, age or substandard work.

“The applicants fall into error by having engaged in selective reading of the ... expert’s report,” the decision said.

“That report concludes that the pipework under the applicants home had already become broken in consequence of ground movement, before the roots of the fig tree gained entry to the pipes.

“(The) blockage was merely the event that informed the applicants that they had a long standing problem with their drains. It was not causative of the problem ...

“To allow this claim to succeed would be to make the mistake of confounding causation with consequential identifications ... it would be akin to the owners of a coal mine attempting to sue to owner of the canary that had alerted them to the fact of a gas problem in their mine.”

Mr Cacopardo told the Bulletin he thought the QCAT decision “very unfair”.

The Woolcocks declined to comment. ...