English
An injunction had been granted restraining a construction of the defendant. The plaintiffs meant that the construction would offend their right to a clean and healthy environment. The defendant sought for the plaintiff to be given an undertaking in damages.
The defendant stated that the stoppage of the construction works and the termination of the contract with the contractor caused significant losses. They meant that this often was covered by damages.
The plaintiffs argued that in the case where a public interest was involved, there could be exceptions to the duty to pay damages.
The Court found that the right to a clean and healthy environment it guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and a constitutional right. The Court moreover found that the requirement of an undertaking in damages could unduly hamper the right of access to justice and if the plaintiff could not pay damages, an irreversible injury could have already been made to the environment.
The request for damages was therefore declined.