The operators of a company in premises next to food additives manufacturer took action against the food additives company as a result of alleged nuisance from the escape of noxious odours. Their original action was dismissed but they appealed to the High Court. The High Court judgement has been released and their appeal again dismissed. Case summary by Dr Michael Bull – Odour Consultant.
 |
| [relatedPosts title=”Related Posts”] |
|
|
The appeal was originally dismissed on four grounds:
- The character of the area was a light industrial estate – the judge decided Park Ingredients operations were a reasonable use given the nature of the area;
- The evidence of frequency, intensity and effect of the odours was not sufficient to amount to nuisance;
- The occupier of a unit on a light industrial estate must expect the possibility of disagreeable smells;
- There was nothing unreasonable in the company’s use of the a unit on the industrial estate, it was not out of place for the area.
Hirose Electrical challenged these arguments at appeal, much of their arguments centred on the fact there was a porous wall between the two premises and because of this, odorous activities were not a suitable use of the premises. They also argued that the judge had been wrong to hold that the odours did not constitute a nuisance and had not taken regard to the evidence of their employees.
The High Court dismissed the appeal firstly because it was felt it was a reasonable use of the premises given it was an industrial estate and the operations of the food additive company had continued without objection or intervention on environmental grounds by the statutory authorities. Secondly, the appeal court had no ground on which to doubt the original findings of the judge regarding the strength and effects of the smell, the original judgement had been influenced by the fact that Hirose had remained on the site for nearly 6 years after Peak had started manufacturing and had done little about the problem. Finally the nature of the party wall was relevant; the original judge noted that it would have been cheaper to seal the party wall than take court action.
This is an interesting judgement but possibly with limited applicability elsewhere as it largely concerns odours within a building rather than the external environment. The comments regarding expectations of odours in light industrial areas are interesting but probably wouldn’t apply to the external environmental. However, this case again highlights the requirement to fully document all odour complaints – the courts appear to place great weight on the volume and frequency of complaint in determining whether nuisance has occurred.
The case is available here.
