Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited

Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited

The claims fail because the evidence does not establish that dust, odour, or noise emissions from Kronospan's factory caused a substantial interference with the enjoyment of the claimants' properties sufficient to amount to a legal nuisance. The frequency, nature, and impact of emissions, even in the most affected areas, did not cross the threshold for actionable nuisance. There was no sufficient evidence that the principal cause of substantial interference was emissions from Kronospan, and the defence of prescription would not have succeeded in any event.

Parties
Claimant: Patricia Andrews & others; Defendant: Kronospan Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation (environmental Nuisance) / Judgment After Trial of Lead Claimants' Claims for Damages (stage One)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Public Nuisance, Prescription, Best Available Techniques (bat), Environmental Permitting, Damages for Loss of Amenity
Tort Law Environmental Law Private Nuisance Public Nuisance Prescription Best Available Techniques (bat) Environmental Permitting Damages for Loss of Amenity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Andrews & others

Claimant

Kronospan Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation (environmental Nuisance) / Judgment After Trial of Lead Claimants' Claims for Damages (stage One)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether emissions of dust, odour, and noise from Kronospan's factory constituted a legal nuisance to claimants in Chirk during the relevant claim period (2011-2017)
  2. 2 Whether the interference was substantial and actionable in law
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's use was ordinary and/or reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claims fail because the evidence does not establish that dust, odour, or noise emissions from Kronospan's factory caused a substantial interference with the enjoyment of the claimants' properties sufficient to amount to a legal nuisance. The frequency, nature, and impact of emissions, even in the most affected areas, did not cross the threshold for actionable nuisance. There was no sufficient evidence that the principal cause of substantial interference was emissions from Kronospan, and the defence of prescription would not have succeeded in any event.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • All claims of the lead claimants are dismissed.
  • No damages awarded.