Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Application for injunction to prohibit use of pesticides and slurry near family home refused due to lack of evidence
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused an application by a family for interlocutory injunctive relief to prohibit neighbouring landowners from using pesticides and spreading slurry near their property, which the family claimed was causing them personal injury and property damage. The court found no sufficient medical or scientific evidence linking the defendants' lawful use of authorised pesticides and agricultural substances to the alleged health problems, property damage, or deaths cited by the plaintiffs. The judge emphasised the speculative and unsupported nature of the plaintiffs' allegations and concluded that there was no fair question to be tried deserving of injunctive relief. Costs were awarded to the defendants, with a stay on execution pending further proceedings.
interlocutory injunction – personal injuries – agricultural pesticides – slurry spreading – neighbour dispute – evidence – balance of convenience – fair question to be tried – costs – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – European Communities (Sustainable Use of Pesticides) Regulations 2012 – constitutional rights – hearsay evidence – expert opinion – family and child safety
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
