‘A pet owner has been ordered to pay more than £3,000 after neighbours repeatedly complained about his unruly cockerel’s constant crowing.’
The Independent, 21st February 2025
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A bar has had its licence revoked less than a year after it opened, following repeated breaches of its conditions.’
BBC News, 28th October 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) has been given 35 days to disclose information in a lengthy dispute about noise from a piano.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th September 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A woman with a heightened sensitivity or hypersensitivity to noise and to smell has lost a judicial review in the High Court after Mr Justice Murray decided there was nothing more the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) could reasonably have done to relieve the situation.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th April 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Residents who claimed councillors at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea were given “significantly misleading” advice from a planning officer before approving planning permission for the redevelopment of a site for a school have failed in a judicial review bid of the decision.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th January 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 were enacted on 1st October 2023, together with the 156th Update Practice Direction Amendments and Explanatory Note. This article provides an overview of the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that apply to noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims.’
Farrar's Building, 20th October 2023
Source: www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk
‘The Housing Ombudsman has found severe maladministration for Clarion after its “lack of consideration” of a resident’s vulnerability when handling his complaints about noise led to him suffering over a nine-month period.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd November 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Audiometric testing of employees has played a central role in the management of risk of exposure of workers to excessive levels of noise in industry for many decades. Audiometry can detect early damage to hearing. Typically where used by prudent employers, the testing would have comprised self-recorded automated audiometry (such as Bekesy audiograms). The reliability and relevance of such historical occupational testing remains open to challenge by some medico-legal experts. This article examines the pros and cons of such historical testing in the context of assessing the merits of deafness claims where the results of such testing are at odds with more recent “diagnostic” audiograms.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 19th July 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘LB Lambeth v Fanfair, County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, 14 February 2023. Our grateful thanks to Angharad Monk of Garden Court for this note of LB Lambeth’s claim for an injunction against Ms Fanfair under Part 1 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and the much delayed (if surely inevitable) strike out of the claim. A county court decision, but worthy of note here not just for the flimsy and inadequate evidence on which Lambeth initiated and pursued proceedings, but also for the way they continued to pursue proceedings for the best part of a year, despite breaching directions and despite the evidence of their own expert. Lambeth not turning up to the final hearing was perhaps a fitting dénouement. Anyway, the upshot is that ordinary noise is not ASB, and lack of sound insulation does not make ordinary use into a nuisance.’
Nearly Legal, 1st May 2023
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘On 3 March 2023, Johnson J handed down judgment in relation to former marine Mr Barry’s claim that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) caused his noise-induced hearing loss. It is the first time judicial guidance has been expressly given on the reduction factors (other than mortality) since the revised guidance in the 8th edition of the Ogden tables were published in July 2020.’
3PB, March 2023
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This blog reviews the High Court decision in Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB) and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the application of the Moore et al. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Quantification of Military Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 14th March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘A former Royal Marine was medically discharged at the age of 29 years with noise-induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) and tinnitus sustained after training exercises. Primary liability was admitted.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 28th March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘A former Royal Marine is seeking more than £1m in damages from the government over “noise-induced hearing loss”.’
BBC News, 19th January 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd (2022) EWHC 2760 (TCC). This is another in what appears to be becoming a series (see previous post) of very expensive but failed nuisance claims. I will not go into great detail, but there are two lessons to be drawn.’
Nearly Legal, 6th November 2022
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Noise-detecting traffic cameras will be trialled in four areas in England in an attempt to crack down on “boy racers” who rev engines and use illegal exhausts, the Department for Transport has announced.’
The Guardian, 18th October 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Lawyers must take note of a court’s refusal to allow multiple claimants with widely differing claims to use a single claim form, a legal expert has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th July 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The High Court has blocked a firm’s latest attempt to issue multiple different claims through the same claim form.’
Law Society's Gazette, 15th July 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has revived an acoustic shock claim after a finding that the defendant’s evidence was incorrect and the judge was considering the wrong issue.’
Law Society's Gazette, 5th May 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A High Court master has revoked permission for the claimants in a group action to rely on an expert’s evidence because of “serious transgressions” by him and the group’s solicitors.’
Legal Futures, 8th March 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The first edition of Controlling Noise at Work was published in 1998, and was founded on the earlier Noise at Work Regulations 1989. It was comprehensively revised in 2005 in advance of the enactment of the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 from 6 April 2006. Minor amendments to the Regulations, and the passage of time, have generated the need for a third edition, which offers an opportunity to reconsider the Guidance itself, which contains a plethora of detail beyond the Regulations, and fertile material for cross-examination and submissions at trial.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 2nd November 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025