Fences, Trees and Neighbour Disputes
These disputes are rarely about money. They are about a relationship that has gone wrong, and the law offers a narrow, procedural way through.
Dividing fences and problem trees in Queensland are governed by the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011. Adjoining owners are generally liable to contribute equally to a sufficient dividing fence. Trees are the responsibility of the tree-keeper, being the owner of the land the tree is on. Where neighbours cannot agree, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal can decide the matter.
Fences: the notice comes before the argument
The starting position under the Act is that adjoining owners are each liable to contribute equally to the construction and repair of a sufficient dividing fence. What is sufficient depends on the circumstances of the land, including the type of fence in the locality and the purpose the land is used for, so it is a question of fact rather than a fixed specification.
The mechanism the Act provides is a written notice to contribute. An owner who wants fencing work done gives the adjoining owner notice setting out the proposed work and the proposed contribution, ordinarily supported by a quotation. If the neighbour agrees, the matter is resolved by agreement. If no agreement is reached within the period the Act allows, either owner may apply to QCAT.
Two practical points make most of the difference here. The first is that doing the work before serving a notice, and then asking to be reimbursed, is the most common way an owner ends up bearing the whole cost — the process runs forwards, not backwards. The second is that the notice is the document QCAT will look at, so a vague notice produces a weak application.
Where urgent work is needed — a fence destroyed by a storm or a fallen tree, with an immediate risk — the Act provides for urgent fencing work, which allows work to proceed with a notice given afterwards. That is an exception with its own requirements, not a general shortcut.
Trees: the tree-keeper is responsible
The Act uses the concept of a tree-keeper, being broadly the owner of the land on which a tree is situated. A tree-keeper is responsible for cutting and removing branches that overhang a neighbour’s land and for ensuring the tree does not cause serious injury, serious damage to land or property, or substantial ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a neighbour’s land.
A neighbour affected by a tree may give the tree-keeper a written notice asking for the work to be carried out, and the Act sets out a procedure allowing a neighbour to arrange for overhanging branches to be cut and to recover the cost from the tree-keeper in defined circumstances. The thresholds, distances and periods that govern that procedure are specific and are set by the Act.
If the tree-keeper does not act, an application can be made to QCAT, which has broad powers — it can order that a tree be maintained, removed, or that compensation be paid, and it can make orders about who bears the cost.
One caution worth stating plainly: cutting a neighbour’s tree without following the statutory procedure can expose you to a claim for damage, and trees are sometimes protected by local government vegetation controls or by conditions on a development approval. Check the local council position before anyone touches a chainsaw.
The Act sets specific thresholds, distances and notice periods for branch removal and tree applications, and provides exclusions for certain trees and land. Those figures are deliberately not reproduced here because they determine the outcome and must be applied to your facts. Confirm them against the Act and check your local council’s vegetation rules. See sources 1 and 3.
Retaining walls are treated differently
A common and expensive misunderstanding is that a retaining wall is a fence. Generally it is not, and the fencing provisions of the Act do not apply to retaining walls. Liability for a retaining wall usually depends on who benefits from it, how it came to be built, whether it supports a cut or a fill, and what any development approval required.
These disputes are more complex than fencing disputes and are worth advice before a notice is served or work is commissioned, because the wrong framing at the start is difficult to correct later.
Where these matters are decided
QCAT has jurisdiction over dividing fence disputes and tree disputes, and it is designed to be accessible: filing fees are modest, parties usually represent themselves, and legal representation generally requires leave.
Further sources for the Knowledge Hub as a whole are listed on the hub source list.