Go Placidly Amid the Noise and Haste

In the modern world that we live in, many of us suffer from noise nuisance.  Most of the time we just have to put up with the constant sound of moving traffic on nearby roads, aeroplanes  passing overhead every 10 minutes or so, high-speed trains roaring past occasionally sounding their horns and the noise from nightclubs, pubs and private parties.  How many times have you heard people say – “well, it’s their fault for moving to this area – they should have known about the noise from such and such”?

In a recent case in the Supreme Court (which used to be the House of Lords) (case citation Lawrence and another v Fen Tigers Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 13;  [2014] WLR (D)100), or Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants)  it has been decided that it does not matter if you move into the noise nuisance area, what is important is that the noise is a nuisance!  Their Lordships held that it is no defence to a claim of noise nuisance that the claimant moved into the area where the noise was already being made.  A nuisance is a nuisance and the remedy in cases like this is usually an injunction to restrict the activities of the noise-maker and damages to compensate for past noise nuisance.  However, an injunction is not always necessarily the right solution.

The defendants ran a speedway stadium and motocross track.  They had applied for and received planning permission to do so.  Their Lordships said there were many aspects to take into consideration when it came to NOT ordering an injunction against the perpetrators of the noise.  The planning permission was taken into consideration as well as whether the noise was within specified decibel levels included in the planning permission.  They would also take into consideration whether the activity making the noise was from a socially beneficial activity to the community and whether an injunction would cause the perpetrators of the noise to close their business thereby losing employment opportunities.  They also considered the fact of whether damages would compensate the claimant as opposed to an injunction.

The outcome was that they reinstated the decision of the Judge at first instance which awarded damages to the claimants for past nuisance suffered and imposed an injunction on the defendants to prevent them making the noise.  They did, however, point out that the Court had the discretion of not awarding an injunction where there was a noise nuisance taking into consideration all of the aspects of the case and that the defendants were at liberty to apply to have the injunction lifted and pay damages instead.

If, therefore, you are a noise-maker take note that just because you are doing it now, does not mean that you can do it forever.  As Max Ehrman said “Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence”

If you are suffering a noise nuisance, you may be able to get help on a no win no fee basis.  Go to www.john-kennedy.co.uk or call Tina Morgan on 01707 69718601707 697186

The Crusader

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype