WILLIAM MACBEAN AGAINST SCOTTISH WATER [2020] ScotCS CSOH_55 (29 May 2020)

WILLIAM MACBEAN AGAINST SCOTTISH WATER [2020] ScotCS CSOH_55 (29 May 2020)

The court held that while the WWTP continues to emit odours that reach the pursuer's property, these are now irregular, faint, transient, and only occasionally invade the property. Giving due weight to all circumstances—including the public utility of the plant, the steps taken by Scottish Water, and the nature of the remaining odours—the interference is not 'plus quam tolerabile' and does not amount to a continuing actionable nuisance.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_55
Parties
Pursuer: William MacBean; Defender: Scottish Water
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (nuisance) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's claim for continuing nuisance refused; no further declarator or interdict granted.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Odour Pollution, Waste Water Treatment, Declarator, Interdict, Damages, Statutory Authority

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William MacBean

Pursuer

Scottish Water

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (nuisance) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

  1. 1 Whether odours from the Boat of Garten WWTP constitute a continuing actionable nuisance to the pursuer's property
  2. 2 Whether the remedial measures taken by Scottish Water have abated the nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the plant is 'fit for purpose' in terms of odour control

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the WWTP continues to emit odours that reach the pursuer's property, these are now irregular, faint, transient, and only occasionally invade the property. Giving due weight to all circumstances—including the public utility of the plant, the steps taken by Scottish Water, and the nature of the remaining odours—the interference is not 'plus quam tolerabile' and does not amount to a continuing actionable nuisance.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's claim for continuing nuisance refused; no further declarator or interdict granted.