Damage Caused by Neighbour’s Mulberry Tree – Owner Held Responsible

In a recent judgement, the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled on a dispute between neighbours in Hamrun concerning structural damage caused by invasive tree roots originating from the defendant’s property (First Hall of the Civil Court, 9 July 2025, Rikors Ġuramentat Nru.: 358/2019MH).

The plaintiff, claimed that over several years the roots of a large mulberry tree planted in her neighbour’s garden had spread beneath her home, causing tiles in multiple rooms to rise and crack. Technical and agricultural experts confirmed that the damage was caused by the roots of the mulberry tree, identifiable through their colour and spread pattern.

The defendant, denied liability and argued that the tree had been planted in accordance with the legal distances set out in Article 437 of the Civil Code, which requires a minimum distance of 2 metres for large trees and 0.5 metres for smaller trees. Expert evidence showed the tree was in fact planted around 13 metres away from the property — well beyond the minimum legal requirement.

However, the Court held that respecting the minimum planting distance does not exempt an owner from liability if the tree nonetheless causes actual damage to neighbouring property. Citing the extensive expert evidence, the Court noted that the roots had invaded the plaintiff’s property, causing damage over a prolonged period and requiring expensive remedial works.

The Court therefore ordered the defendant to pay €8,500 in damages and to carry out remedial works within two months. If defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is authorised to carry out the works under the supervision of a court-appointed architect at the defendant’s expense.

This judgment highlights that respecting legal planting distances does not absolve liability if a tree causes real and proven damage. Property owners remain responsible for preventing and remedying harm caused by invasive roots, even years after planting.

N.B. The information provided herein does not constitute legal advice. For further information, please feel free to call +356 99491230 or send an email to avukatdemaria@gmail.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Requirements for Valid Ground Rent Redemption

In a 2002 judgment, the Court of Appeal  confirmed the nullity of a schedule of redemption of ground rent that had not complied with the contractual terms regulating the emphyteutical concession (Court of Appeal, 16 January 2002, App. Civ. 210/95) . The case involved a ground rent concession established in 1979, before the legislative amendments of 1981. The Court held that where an emphyteutical contract predates 15 August 1981, the redemption of ground rent must follow the procedure laid down in the contract itself and not the general mechanism under Article 1501 of the Civil Code. In particular, the Court emphasised that the contractual provisions concerning the timing and capitalization rate for redemption are binding . A redemption carried out in a manner inconsistent with those provisions does not meet the legal requirements and is therefore invalid. The Court also clarified that where a contractual clause partly conflicts with the law, only the conflicting portion is dis...
Read more