Tree and Overhanging Branch Disputes in Australia by State

Only three Australian states, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, have a dedicated tree-dispute statute. Everywhere else, a tree problem with a neighbour is governed by the general common law of nuisance and the limited self-help right of abatement.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026 against the primary legislation. This page presents general legal information, not legal advice.

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers tree and overhanging-branch disputes between neighbours across Australia, verified 21 July 2026. It does not cover trees on public land, council-controlled street trees, or heritage-listed and protected trees, all of which are usually regulated separately by local planning schemes.

Only three states have a dedicated tree-dispute statute

See tree disputes in New South Wales, tree disputes in Queensland and tree disputes in Tasmania for the detail specific to each of these three jurisdictions.

Where there is no dedicated statute: common law nuisance and abatement

Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory do not have a tree-specific statute. A tree dispute in these jurisdictions instead relies on the general common law of private nuisance, plus the long-standing self-help right of abatement. Under abatement, a landholder can generally cut back branches and roots that cross onto their land, but only to the boundary line, and only without entering the neighbour's land. Entering a neighbour's property without permission, even to deal with an overhanging branch, is not something abatement authorises, and this article does not recommend it. Where a tree is causing serious damage or a genuine safety risk in one of these five jurisdictions, formal legal advice about a private nuisance claim, rather than a state-specific fencing or tree tribunal, is the appropriate next step.

The "you must offer the branches back" myth

A claim circulates that a person cutting back overhanging branches or roots is legally required to offer the cuttings back to the tree's owner. This is not correct anywhere in Australia, and where the law actually addresses the point, it says the opposite. Section 12(2) of the Neighbourhood Disputes About Plants Act 2017 (Tas) provides that a person exercising the common law right of abatement by removing part of a plant "may, but is not required to, return the part of the plant to the landholder". Queensland's Act uses almost identical language: section 54(2) of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) says a neighbour who removes "an overhanging branch containing fruit", for example, "may, but is not required to, return the removed part to the tree-keeper." Returning cuttings, especially fruit, is a reasonable courtesy that can help avoid a dispute escalating, but nothing in Australian law makes it compulsory.

New South Wales: damage risk and high hedges are separate applications

New South Wales treats these as two distinct problems. Part 2 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 lets an affected landowner apply to the Land and Environment Court for an order where a tree is causing, or is likely to cause, damage to property or injury to a person. Part 2A is a separate high-hedges regime, available only where at least two trees planted to form a hedge rise to 2.5 metres or more, and only where the hedge is obstructing sunlight to a window or a view. Section 5 of the Act expressly removes the ordinary common-law nuisance action for anything the Act itself covers, meaning a New South Wales landholder affected by a qualifying tree or hedge must use the statutory Land and Environment Court process rather than bringing a private nuisance claim.

Queensland and Tasmania: overhanging-branch notices

Both Queensland and Tasmania give a neighbour a formal branch-removal notice process as an alternative to self-help abatement. In each state, the affected landholder can give the tree's owner written notice specifying a removal deadline (a minimum of 30 days in both jurisdictions) for branches extending a set distance onto their land and below a set height, and the notice can also give permission for the tree owner to enter the affected land to do the work. If the tree owner does not act, the matter can proceed to QCAT (Queensland) or the Appeal Tribunal within TASCAT (Tasmania). Both jurisdictions also require the parties to make reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute directly before a formal application, and Tasmania's Act specifically requires the affected landholder and the tree owner to each make those attempts under section 19.

Entry onto a neighbour's land is always restricted

Every jurisdiction discussed on this page treats entry onto a neighbour's land as something that needs specific authorisation, never something a general right of abatement provides on its own. Tasmania's Act, for example, generally requires at least 7 days' written notice before a person can rely on the Act's own entry provision, separate from any permission given as part of a branch-removal notice. Where no statute applies at all, in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, the common law position is stricter still: abatement lets a landholder deal with growth crossing onto their own land, but it gives no right to step onto a neighbour's property. Anyone dealing with a tree dispute anywhere in Australia should treat entering a neighbour's land, for any purpose, as something that requires either the neighbour's agreement or a specific legal authorisation, not an assumption.

This page is general legal information about neighbour disputes in Australia, verified on 21 July 2026. It is not legal advice, and it does not cover every situation. For advice about your own dispute, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the relevant Australian state or territory.