Testimonials

Newhouse & Arnold Solicitors dealt with my franchise matter efficiently and with integrity. David Newhouse's experience in franchise law was exceptional. His service and fixed fee service approach was excellent. I will definitely recommend Newhouse & Arnold Solicitors to my family and friends, and I look forward to use his service again for my next franchise purchase.

Tom Rusli, Crust Franchisee

I take this opportunity to thank Newhouse and Arnold Solicitors Franchise Lawyers for your diligence during the whole franchise business purchase, especially when things started to go "wrong" pre-settlement. Your services have been excellent and extremely cost efficient. I will definitely recommend your services to friends and relations.

Ludovic Laporte

After engaging and dismissing numerous solicitors over the last ten years, we have finally found 'our solicitor' in David Newhouse. David is thorough, efficient and above all communicates freely in simple language. In a recent purchase of a franchise, we suddenly found a minefield of potential risks expose themselves. David calmly collected all the information and laid out our options clearly. He kept us fully informed of changes in the situation at all times.

Alan Popely & Janita Rankin, Howards Storage Franchisee

I would not hesitate to recommend your firm. Having been in a difficult situation with the Franchisor, your advice and guidance was instrumental in identifying an exit strategy and enabling me to execute it quickly and efficiently.

Nigel Hall

Your advice in preparing our plain english IT service contract has allowed our business greater protection and has allowed our customers to confidently engage our IT services and understand now exactly what they getting from us.

Francis McIntyre

Legal News

Billy Baxter Franchisee Provided Wrong Comparable Figures by Franchisor

The Franchisor, Billy Baxter, provided estimated sales figures/turnover/rent for a new greenfield café by using comparable figures from another café. The Franchisor quoted figures were higher than the actual turn-over from the other cafe.
read more...

NSW Land & Environment Court does not link termites, fire potential or leaf litter as a reason to remove neighbours trees under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

In Class 2 proceedings, Fakes C in Sultana v Micallef [2012] NSWLEC 1078, the NSW Land & Environment Court dismissed the bulk of proceedings, save as to granting the removal of 1 tree out of 69 trees in Schofields, Sydney...
read more...

Big bust up at Sydney's SumoSalad

"In my experience, it is rare to see a franchisee thrown out of a store," Mr Newhouse said...
read more...

NSW Land & Environment Court dismisses tree dispute claim that roots from a neighbours tree did not cause structural cracking of a neighbours wall

In proccedings, the NSW Land & Environment Court dismissed proceedings as the Applicants were unable to prove that a Blue Gum tree in Castle Cove, Sydney caused or is causing damage to a neighbours house...
read more...

NSW Land and Environment Court refuses to subdivide two residential lots

In Class 1 proceedings, Tuor C in Tenhave v Wollongong Council [2010] NSWLEC 1361, the NSW Land & Environment Court disallowed an appeal to subdivide two residential lots at Cordeau Heights, Wollongong...
read more...

Location

McMahons Point (Head Office)
23A King George Street,
McMahons Point NSW 2060
Phone: 02 9922 1100
get map/directions

Bondi Junction (Branch)
Suite 14, Level 2, 51-53 Spring Street
Bondi Junction NSW 2022
Phone: 02 9922 1100
get map/directions

Mailing Correspondence
PO Box 7136
McMahons Point NSW 2060
send an email

NSW Land & Environment Court dismisses tree dispute claim that roots from a neighbours tree did not cause structural cracking of a neighbours wall

In Class 2 proccedings Craig J in Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29, the NSW Land & Environment Court dismissed proceedings as the Applicants were unable to prove that a Blue Gum tree in Castle Cove, Sydney caused or is causing damage to a neighbours house (cracking structutal walls) as the New South Wales Land and Environment Court could not find a causal connection between the tree and the structural wall cracking of the neighbouring house.

Under the Tree (Disputes Between Neighbours Act), the Court must be satisfied as to the existence of a causal connection between the tree and the damage or injury before the Court will make orders to remove the tree and/or grant compensation (see Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152.