Andrews v Reading Borough Council [2004] EWHC 970 (QB) (29 April 2004)

Andrews v Reading Borough Council [2004] EWHC 970 (QB) (29 April 2004)

The claimant's assertions, if substantiated, may establish a breach of Article 8 ECHR due to serious interference from traffic noise and lack of compensation; the defendants have not shown there is no real prospect of success, so summary judgment is inappropriate.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 970 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Geoffrey Wallace Andrews; Defendant: Reading Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998 / Application for Summary Judgment and Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Noise Nuisance, Proportionality, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs
Human Rights Administrative Law Civil Procedure Article 8 ECHR Noise Nuisance Proportionality Summary Judgment Security for Costs

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Wallace Andrews

Claimant

Reading Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998 / Application for Summary Judgment and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether increased traffic noise from a traffic regulation order breaches Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether absence of compensation renders interference disproportionate under Article 8(2)
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's assertions, if substantiated, may establish a breach of Article 8 ECHR due to serious interference from traffic noise and lack of compensation; the defendants have not shown there is no real prospect of success, so summary judgment is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment refused.
  • Application for security for costs refused.