Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law

Insights
This document is from our archive and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.

Property Law - Hackney LBC v. Rottenberg [2007] EWHC 166 (Admin)

Area(s) of Law :
Property Law
Court :
Source : EWHC 166 (Admin)

Nuisance- criminal prosecution

Noise from Synagogue and school un by R - abatement notice served- alleged breaches- R convicted by Magistrates- R appealed by way of re-hearing in the Crown Court –R  contended not a nuisance, and that prosecution was breach of Art. 9 of the ECHR - evidence lead by A from expert environmental protection and pollution control officers that noise was a nuisance-  appeal allowed in Crown Court on basis that noise did not constitute a nuisance, and was therefore not a breach of the abatement notice- appeal by A to Divisional Court by way of case stated:
Held: Appeal dismissed. The Court is not obliged to accept unconditionally the evidence of an expert that specific noise amounts, in the expert’s view, to a nuisance. This is the case even where the evidence is unchallenged. The fact that the noise had arisen in the course of use for which the site had planning permission (religious worship) was a relevant consideration in deciding whether the noise amounted to a nuisance such that a criminal offence had been committed. This was a subjective decision for the Court to make, and not for an expert, however experienced.