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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court determines that the operation of a windfarm resulted in a private nuisance, significantly affecting the plaintiffs' quality of life through noise and vibration, and: (1) directs the parties to engage in mediation to determine appropriate mitigation measures; (2) does not grant damages for personal injuries due to psychiatric harm, as it was not established as reasonably foreseeable; and (3) rejects the plaintiffs' application for an injunction, as the alleged breaches of planning permission were not substantiated.
Private nuisance - windfarm - noise and vibration - amplitude modulation (AM) - low-frequency noise - sleep disturbance - mediation - mitigation measures - expert witness credibility - personal injuries - psychiatric harm - foreseeability - Section 160 injunction - planning permission compliance.
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.