When Mr. H cut down some conifers on his boundary, having checked with his neighbour that this was acceptable, little did he realise the problems this would cause him. Later on, his neighbour’s widow realised that the trees had been on her land. She sought significant compensation, presumably to replace the conifers. A quotation for supply and planting of replacement trees was presented to Mr. H. It was substantial. He sought guidance to enable an informed response. We identified that the proposed replacements were more substantial that the trees removed. Indeed, the proposed replacements would have needed a crane to lift them in to their new positions, and the site could not accommodate this.

We provided Mr. H. with a detailed expert report, to enable him to make an informed defence, and supported him during mediation. Using the CTLA Replacement Tree Method, we identified that the trees could be replaced for considerably less than was being sought, and the claim was unreasonable. This including appraising the condition of the trees that had been removed; the new trees would improve the situation considerably, which was not a proportionate outcome if it was at Mr. H’s expense.