Neighbourhood Tree Dispute Involving Ibrahim Family Relative Escalates to Court
A specialist paediatric dentist in Sydney's south has found herself embroiled in a bitter legal battle with the uncle of the notorious Ibrahim family over a long-running dispute concerning overhanging trees. The case, heard in the NSW Land and Environment Court, highlights how seemingly minor neighbourhood disagreements can escalate into costly and protracted court proceedings.
The Core of the Dispute
Dr Thuy Huong Nguyen, who resides in a multi-million dollar, six-bedroom home on the Kyle Bay peninsula with her husband and two children, launched legal action last year against Moustafa Sayour. Mr Sayour is the uncle of Kings Cross identities John, Fadi, Sam, and Michael Ibrahim. The dispute centres on three properties belonging to Mr Sayour and his family members that adjoin Dr Nguyen's luxury residence.
Dr Nguyen applied to the court for orders requiring the owners to cut back two large trees and a hedge that border her property. She represented herself in the legal matter, arguing that the overhanging branches posed a significant risk to her home and family.
Specific Concerns and Allegations
In court documents, Dr Nguyen expressed serious concerns about a mature Sydney blue gum tree, approximately 25 metres tall, located on Mr Sayour's property. She stated that the tree had already shed large branches onto her property and feared further damage to her glass patio balustrade, planter boxes, and windows. Dr Nguyen claimed the tree had not been pruned in the seven years she had lived at the address.
She also named Mr Sayour's wife, Fatima, as a respondent in the case. Ms Sayour owns a property directly south of Dr Nguyen's, which features a Sydney red gum (or smooth-barked apple) tree of similar height. Dr Nguyen held comparable concerns about this tree causing property damage. Notably, she pointed out that one branch was in such close proximity to her fireplace flue that she could not safely use her gas fireplace, due to the risk of setting the branch alight.
The paediatric dentist told the court she had made repeated efforts to resolve the issues directly with the Sayour family before resorting to legal action. These attempts reportedly included discussions with the Sayours' daughters, Zina and Lamia, who live at the adjoining properties. However, communication broke down. Dr Nguyen alleged the family subsequently accused her of trespassing when she attempted to prune the overhanging foliage herself and directed her to communicate only through their lawyer.
The Defence and Court Proceedings
Kenneth Ti of Adams and Partners Lawyers, representing the Sayour family in court, contested Dr Nguyen's claims. He argued that she had not made a reasonable effort to reach an agreement, as she had not communicated directly with the property owners themselves, only with their daughters residing there.
In a sworn affidavit, Yesmine Sayour, who lives at her father's property with the blue gum tree, disputed the characterisation of the tree as overgrown or unsafe. She denied it posed any risk to Dr Nguyen's property. Instead, Yesmine Sayour stated the tree provided essential privacy, screening, and shade for her home, contributing significantly to the comfort of their backyard, especially during summer. She also noted her family pays a considerable sum to maintain the gardens and landscaping across all three of their properties.
The Court's Final Ruling
Acting Commissioner David Galwey handed down his decision on January 13. He found in favour of Dr Nguyen, ordering Mr and Ms Sayour to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and insured arborist to prune both contentious trees within 60 days.
Commissioner Galwey stated he was satisfied that both trees were likely to cause damage to Dr Nguyen's property in the near future. The specific orders required the Sayours to:
- Reduce overextended branches above the applicant's property.
- Provide two metres of clearance between the applicant's dwelling and all parts of the trees.
- Remove all dead branches greater than 25mm in diameter above the applicant's property.
In his reasoning, Commissioner Galwey noted, 'The respondents may have found Dr Nguyen’s requests unreasonable, but she clearly found them reasonable and took all reasonable steps to gain some agreement.' He added, 'On my experience, the nature of neighbourhood tree disputes is that neighbouring parties can look upon the one situation very differently.'
Regarding costs, the Commissioner saw no reason to diverge from the norm, ruling that the tree owners must pay for the pruning works. 'The applicant has not contributed to the risk of damage,' he stated. 'She has brought the issues to the respondent’s attention and has reasonably expected the tree’s owner to take action to prevent damage.'
However, the ruling did not grant Dr Nguyen everything she sought. Commissioner Galwey found that if she wished to prune the other hedges bordering her property, she must 'rely' on the Sayours' 'goodwill or find an alternative solution.'
Family Connections and Aftermath
The case brought an unexpected spotlight onto the Sayour family due to their relation to the well-known Ibrahim brothers. However, it is understood the Sayour family has not been involved with the Ibrahims for years and the two families are not on speaking terms. The dispute was described in court at one point as a 'heated interaction', underscoring the personal tensions involved.
This legal saga serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of property boundaries and neighbourly relations, even in Sydney's most affluent suburbs. The Daily Mail has contacted both Dr Nguyen and the Sayours' lawyer, Kenneth Ti, for further comment on the court's decision.
