Ian McQuire claimed the utility had a "Rambo" approach and it's practices were illegal after two large claret ash trees in his backyard were pruned without notice in January last year.

A significant amount of foliage was removed and Mr McQuire claimed that he suffered loss in the form of reduced shading in his back yard, reduced privacy for activities in the back yard, and reduced visual amenity.

He initially complained to ActewAGL and demanded that a half page apology be published in The Canberra Times and signed by the company's chief executive.

But the utility refused, and the angry landholder launched action in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in its role as energy and water ombudsman for the territory.

During proceedings, ActewAGL advised that the tree limbs had been identified as being dangerously close – within 30cm of the lines where clearance of two metres was required - to the high voltage network.

The tree was labelled as a "burner", meaning that it required urgent attention, and a contractor pruned without notice to the property owner, and at the utility's expense.

ActewAGL apologised for Mr McQuire's inconvenience, but refused to publish an apology in the paper.

Mr McQuire rejected the response, and launched action, saying he did not want ActewAGL to "get away with it".

Mr McQuire, and his wife Uschi, claimed they were owed $19002 in damages, including $5907 for a shade sail, $80 for a toner cartridge, $6400 for loss of privacy, and $1900 for emotional upset.

At hearings in February and July, Mr McQuire said he had hired a lift and pruned the two ash trees with the help of his son-in-law only days before the utility did the same.

He told the tribunal that the extra pruning by ActewAGL contractors had been unnecessary and excessive.

But the ACAT, in a judgment published on Wednesday, found the tree had been within the required minimum distance, that the work had been urgent, that the actions of ActewAGL were justified, and that the tree cutting team did not enter Mr McGuire's land.

"The tribunal determines that the complaint applications made by the Applicant and the Party Joined should be dismissed," the judgement said.