CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Bailhache and Lucas):
Judgment Date08 July 1982
Date08 July 1982
(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Bailhache and Lucas):

B.E. Troy for the plaintiffs:

B.I. Le Marquand for the defendant.

Injunctionsmandatory injunctioninterim abatement of nuisancecourt may require defendant to take specified steps to reduce scope of nuisance and bring to acceptable level within stated period after which court to review question further

Tortnuisanceabatementcourt may grant interim mandatory injunction requiring defendant to take specified steps to reduce scope of nuisance and bring to acceptable level within stated period after which court to review question further

Tortnuisancereasonable careno defence that defendant took reasonable steps to prevent nuisance occurring

Tortnuisancescale of nuisancequestion of nuisance one of fact, considering time, place, manner and effectnuisance proved if goes beyond normal level of disturbance in locality in question

Tortnuisancesusceptibility of plaintiffplaintiff may not sue to protect personal convenience and quiet enjoyment of property if claim based on abnormal sensitivity of himself or property

Tortnuisancevolentino defence to action for nuisance that plaintiff knew of proposed development giving rise to nuisance but failed to object at time of creation, since no defence that plaintiff comes to nuisance

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF:The plaintiffs in this action live at the premises known as "Chalet des Fraises" which is a small house and garden to the north and to some extent to the west and east, because it is surrounded on three sides by property owned by the defendant company Jersey Strawberry Nurseries Limited. The beneficial owner of that company, Mr. J. Racz, and the company for some years before this action was commenced in June of this year enjoyed friendly relations with the plaintiffs and sometime in 1978 the defendant company, through Mr. Racz, conceived the idea of extending its business activities, which it had been carrying on at what is conveniently to be called The Strawberry Farm, to include a craft centre or area which would be for the production and sale of certain craft items. A plan was submitted to the Island Development Committee to which the male plaintiff Mr. Magyar was party inasmuch as he knew at that time that a craft centre was envisaged. It is unimportant, in our view, whether a glass blowing centre was mentioned or not because it is not the law of nuisance that a person is deprived of his rights under the law if he moves to the nuisance. However it is clear to us that the starting up of the glass blowing activity by the defendant company was not just a wilful wanton act of anti-social interference with the plaintiffs' rights as adjacent neighbours but was something which both the company, through Mr. Racz, and the male plaintiff Mr. Magyar expected could be carried out without causing inconvenience by noise. In the event we are satisfied that Mr. Racz himself was horrified, as indeed of course were the plaintiffs, at the resulting noise when the furnace was first started on the 15th March of this year. It is clear to us that Mr. Racz anticipated, having visited Italy, that he would be able to produce without noise and without causing difficulties to his neighbours a good clear type of glass artifact. He was disappointed for two reasons; firstly the machinery, which was Italian and which he had brought back from Italy, didn't prove capable of manufacturing or blasting clear glass from sand as he had hoped without making, and I repeat the adjective, what he described as a horrifying noise and also, secondly, costing his company a great deal more money a week to run to service the gas necessary to keep the furnace going than he had anticipated. Therefore the company through Mr. Racz took immediate steps to try to change matters. Part of these steps included an effort to insulate the furnances and, as Mr. Racz said when he gave evidence, insulation covers not only heat loss but also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Rockhampton Apartments Ltd and Antler Property C.I. Ltd v Gale and Clarke
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 June 2007
    ...(31) Macrae (née Tudhope) v. Jersey Golf Hotels Ltd., 1973 J.J. 2313, considered. (32) Magyar v. Jersey Strawberry Nurseries Ltd., 1982 J.J. 147, considered. (33) Mercer v. Bower, 1973 J.J. 2453, considered. (34) Mitchell (née Bird) v. Dido Invs. Ltd., 1987-88 JLR 293, not followed. (35) Of......
  • R’S Skips Ltd v Yates and Yates (Née Van Neste)
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 19 May 2008
    ...(7) MCC Proceeds Inc. v. Bishopsgate Inv. Trust plc, [1999] C.L.C. 417, considered. (8) Magyar v. Jersey Strawberry Nurseries Ltd., 1982 J.J. 147, considered. (9) Mayo Associates S.A. v. Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C.I.) Ltd., 1998 JLR 173, applied. (10) Searley v. Dawson, 1971 J.J. ......
  • Darren Paul Hodges v Roger Brian Trenouth-Wood
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 21 May 2021
    ...given the authority of Key (née Shaw) v Regal [1962] JJ 189 and Magyar and Magyar (née Autumn) v Jersey Strawberry Nurseries [1982] JJ 147. In Key, the parties were neighbours. The defendant was carrying out building work on his land which the plaintiff alleged was, among other things, nois......
  • Gale and Clarke v Rockhampton and Antler
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 June 2007
    ...(1962) 254 Ex. 10. Mercer v. Bauer [1973] JJ 2453. Dale v. Dunnell's Limited [1976] JJ 291. Magyar v. Jersey Strawberry Nurseries Limited [1982] JJ 147. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts. Jersey Financial Services Commission v. A P Black (Jersey) Limited [2002] JLR 443. Hemery & Dumaresq 1789......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT