DUST NUISANCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 63, 11 September 1943, Page 9

DUST NUISANCE

INJUNCTION GRANTED

SUPREME COURT CASE

An injunction to restrain LieutenantColonel O. D. Sutcliffe, F. Cassin, mineralogist, and G. O. Barber, manufacturer, from continuing a dust nuisance was granted in the Supreme Court yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) to John Audrey Higgs, We.ington, manufacturer of cellular concrete, who alleged interference with his business. The plamtift also claimed £50 damages, but no damages were awarded. . Mr. R. E. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. A. Tarrant for the defendants. ~ .. The statement of claim said . the building was leased by the plaintill, who occupied the ground floor ana sub-let the premises above to the defendants. The defendants carried on the business of grinders of clays and earths for commercial purposes, in doing so released large quantities or dust which escaped into the plaintiff s premises, covering them with a tnicK deposit and polluting the air so as to be injurious to the health and comfort of the plaintiff and,his workmen, and to interfere seriously with the conduct of the plaintiff's business. The influx of dust had made it impossible for the plaintiff to occupy his office., The pollution, danger, and discomfort had continued for some time and were continuing, continued the statement. The workmen had refused to work because of the dust, and _ the plaintiff could not carryoornr his business effectually until the nuisance was abated. He had large contracts on hand and was short of labour.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

The defence said the plaintiff also carried on a dry-cleaning business. The defendants had done their work in the same way for more than four years and there had been no complaint from the plaintiff. The building was very old, the floor was thin, and there were holes and cracks in the floor which,constituted the ceiling of the portion of the building occupied by the plaintiff. About £2 spent by the plaintiff in repairing his ceiling would stop any dust falling through. The defendants' premises had been inspected by the Health Department and no complaint had been made. Even had some dust fallen through it could not possibly injure the concrete being made by the plaintiff. The defendants occupied an office alongside that of the plaintiff on the same floor, and had never felt any ill effects on their health nor seen any quantities of dust. On September 18, 1939, the plaintiff granted a lease to the firstnamed defendant with full knowledge of the nature of the business to be conducted, and the business had been carried on for nearly four years without complaint. No complaint was made by the plaintiff until he wished to get possession of the premises and found himself prevented from doing so.

The defendants had more than 100 tons of. stock and plant and it was quite impossible to get storage or a new factory under present conditions. They were the only firm carrying on that business, which was vital to the war industry. His Honour said he was not at all satisfied that the plaintiff claimed an injunction for any purpose other than gaining the abatement of what he considered to be a nuisance. The nuisance seemed easy to abate;