Quote:
Originally Posted by S griffin
Common sense dictates that if they don't like the noise don't move there. It's like those people who live by the river and then complain about the floods
|
No, it's a bit different. Common sense also says that if someone does something that creates a racket, they should make sure that the racket only stays on their land. Imagine you have a farm in the middle of nowhere, you were struggling and therefore looking to sell some land as a development or just to raise cash, and someone sets up a racetrack next door. Suddenly your land is worthless because of the noise. Is that fair?
These days things like planning permissions tend to take care of that sort of affair. They can change the environment to one in which noise is more acceptable. But the case seems to suggest there was a ramping up of noise pollution in recent years.
But, what the judgment does is to put the ball back in court. The injunction is restored - with liberty to apply, i.e. to vary the terms or to say that it should be replaced by damages.
This is actually a very big case. The judges on it are all intellectual high powers; the only one without experience is Sumption who is the most genius of them all. Surprised Hale wasn't on there as she's often a contrarian. She might have put in some interesting comment from leftfield. But the Court has basically said "we need a test case on this now" - and this might be it.