| Date | 23 November 2005 |
|
|
| Judgment | Leslie Arthur Stannard v Al Sharekh and Others, QBD 29 July 2005 |
|
|
| The Issue | Noise nuisance between adjoining occupiers of apartments. |
|
|
| Implication |
The
court may grant a mandatory injunction requiring works to be carried
out to minimise noise transmission between adjoining apartments where
it is held that a nuisance is established in law. |
printLeslie Stannard and his family occupy an apartment on the first floor of a block of Victorian flats known as Albert Court, adjacent to the Royal Albert Hall in London. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's Stannard, an architect, had enjoyed a peaceful and uneventful residency at Albert Court. During that period the former landlords had maintained a vigilant control over the use and occupation of the flats. For instance, any proposed change in the use of the accommodation was closely monitored and controlled. Moreover, the leases granted to the various tenants contained provisions relating to the prohibition of noisy conduct and causing annoyance to other residents. Indeed, in respect of the long lease for the flat above Stannard, there was a requirement for the mutual benefit of all tenants that the tenant should maintain floor coverings such as carpets designed to minimise noise transmission. In late 1990 Stannard's peace was shattered by the commencement of building and alteration works to the flat above. This gave rise to a host of problems, including contamination of the hot water supply to Stannard's flat, water leakage and penetration causing damage to ceiling, walls and so forth and noise arising from the installation of a marble floor in the long hallway and ceramic tiled floors in a new kitchen and two new bathrooms. The new arrangements gave rise to considerable noise disturbance. In the summer of 1992 the flat above Stannard was sold, but this did nothing to lessen the impact upon Stannard. Many of the problems he encountered stemmed from the fact that the reorganisation of the flat above had given rise to what could be described as a failure of stacking. The vertical distribution of the accommodation had become incompatible with the minimisation of noise invasion. For example, the kitchen and principal bathroom of the second floor flat were now directly above Stannard's drawing room. Both had been floored with ceramic tiles. A new bathroom, with a WC system that utilised a macerator, was installed directly above Stannard's bedroom. It too had a ceramic floor. In November 1994 the second floor flat was once again sold, this time to a Mr Al Sharekh. Though plainly Sharekh could not be blamed in any way for the earlier problems endured by Stannard, the inconvenience and disturbance continued. Stannah commenced proceedings in the High Court. A single joint expert witness was appointed to carry out a series of tests. The main conclusion of the expert's report was that impact sound results derived from the marble, stone and vinyl floors in place in the second floor flat did not meet the numerical requirements laid down in the relevant Annexure to the Building Regulations 2000. The expert concluded that the results justified the complaints of noise nuisance. In addition to this evidence, the court heard evidence from Stannard. He described how anyone walking along the marble floor above, particularly in high heels, and both adults and children walking or running, were very audible in the flat below. He described how, when he was in bed at night, he could hear the use of the bathroom above. He also complained that the Sharekh family kept very different hours to his own. Stannard described how in former times everyone maintained carpets in position and accommodation was vertically compatible with the result that the disturbance by noise was minimal. Crucially however, in his opinion, elsewhere in the block of flats where marble flooring had been used, the floor had been laid with some kind of resilient acoustic barrier, and this meant apparently that the previously civilised arrangements could continue. Sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court, John Slater QC concluded that Stannard's account was true and accurate when he described the nature, effect and character of the noise invasion which he and his family continued to endure. He also accepted the evidence of the expert witness, that whilst flats in urban areas do involve the tolerance of some level of noise, his overall opinion was that the impact noise was above the modern standards of acceptability and inconsistent with the provisions of the lease. All this was ample justification for Stannard's complaints. The expert also gave evidence to the court that the problem could be very substantially alleviated by the specification of technically correct remedial works, involving the laying of an acoustic barrier to separate the hard floor coverings from the structure below. Regrettably, further works carried out to the kitchen and bathrooms by Sharekh, although well intentioned, had not been undertaken correctly from a technical point of view. The court reviewed previous cases in relation to nuisance. Applying that age old standby of the law, the court had to decide what was reasonable. In the judge's view, the standard of comfort previously enjoyed and the standards envisaged by the lease which were available to the majority of the tenants, were significant and important factors in deciding what was reasonable. The judge concluded that he was willing to grant a mandatory injunction in favour of Stannard, on terms to be agreed by the parties' representatives, requiring the necessary works to be carried out at the expense of Sharekh to minimise noise to an acceptable level.
CJ-0546
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||