Excess noise by nearby factory above World Health Organisation level was not an actionable nuisance. It was a question for each factual situation. An allowance had to be made for the character of the neighbourhood.
Judges:
Lord Justice Nourse Lord Justice Pill And Lord Justice Thorpe
Citations:
Gazette 18-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 33, Times 21-Jan-1998, [1998] EG 6, [1998] Env LR 732, [1998] EHLR 198
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Cited – Millard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
Cited – Walter v Selfe 1851
The burning of bricks on he defendant’s land was a nuisance to the plaintiff’s neighbouring house. An injunction was granted. The court should ask: ‘ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere . .
Cited – Rushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Limited CA 1906
The court considered the question of whether excess noise could constitute a nuisance.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a resident of a district specially devoted to a particular trade cannot complained of nuisance by noise caused by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Environment
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143511
