English
The plaintiff and the defendant both owned buildings adjacent to each other. The defendant rented out parts of his property to parties causing noise that the plaintiff meant was a health hazard. At the time of the trial, the defendant had already ceased the business, so the plaintiff did not seek an injunction, but damages for the harm. The defendant had entered a counterclaim due to damages suffered through the initiation of legal processes against him.
Noise surveys had been carried out by officers of the Ministry of Environment at several occasions to ascertain whether noise levels were above the permissible levels set down in the Environmental Standards for Noise Regulations 1997. Even though the noise levels were determined to be within the permissible levels, the defendant was required to implement a program for remedying the nuisance caused by the activities. The Court also disagreed with the noise levels having been within a permissible level during certain periods, although they never exceeded the maximum level.
In conclusion the Court found that the plaintiff had been inconvenienced by noise from the defendants activities. However, the Court also stated that the defendant had followed the environmental noise standards on most occasions when it was measured and that the defendant had not committed a “faute”.
The Court also established that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith in denouncing the defendant’s activities as there was evidence that the plaintiff had been inconvenienced and that the noise bordered the maximum noise level.
Both the claims and the counterclaims were dismissed.