Matt Cordwent and Lauren Hunt consider nuisance claims and the role of expert evidence in Expert Witness Journal

The case of Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited, concerning the emission of dust, noise and odour from a factory to the extent that it constituted a legal nuisance, reveals some important practical evidential issues surrounding nuisance claims and the importance of expert evidence.

Importantly, the claim did not concern any allegations of personal injury as a result of the emissions from the factory. Ultimately, after the dust had settled, the Court dismissed the claims for nuisance. The decision referred to the fact that the claimants had not established the necessary diminution, and that personal discomfort alone was not sufficient.

Another factor cited by the court was criticism of the expert evidence served by the claimants, which in a nuisance case is normally an objective assessment of the defendant's use of its land, and whether this amounts to a substantial interference with the claimant's ordinary use if its land.

Matt Cordwent, Associate in our Real Estate Disputes team and Lauren Hunt, Trainee Solicitor, write in Expert Witness Journal:

While not the sole reason that the Claimants were unsuccessful, the Court strongly criticised the Claimants' expert's evidence and emphasised the need for experts to maintain the essential principle of independence. If an expert changes their approach, they must be able to explain why this was necessary.

These types of [nuisance] claims can be expensive and time consuming, meaning careful analysis and thorough preparation of a Claimant's case to improve their chances of success is particularly important. 

Read the full article in Expert Witness Magazine here.