42 I accept, in terms of s 5B of the Civil Liability Act, that the tree posed a risk of damage to property or injury to persons from twigs and branches dropping from it, which can be considered a not insignificant risk. However, in relation to a healthy tree of this kind, in my opinion the risk was not shown to be such a risk that a reasonable person would have authorised removal of the tree. The risk of substantial damage to property or significant injury to a person was not shown to have more than a relatively small probability, or to be any different from the risk posed by other trees of a similar type in positions in the vicinity of property and/or frequented by persons. In circumstances where the maintenance of such trees is considered to have social utility, in my opinion it was not shown to be unreasonable for the Council to have adopted DCP 43; and it was not shown that the decision by Mr Khemananta in application of DCP 43 not to authorise removal of the tree was unreasonable.
43 A fortiori, in my opinion, the Council was not shown to have done anything that no Council could consider to be a reasonable exercise of its functions or powers, within the meaning of ss 43 and 43A of the Civil Liability Act.