Webster v Lord Advocate [1985] ScotCS CSIH_1 (07 February 1985)

Webster v Lord Advocate [1985] ScotCS CSIH_1 (07 February 1985)

The only nuisance established was the metallic construction noise (clanging of metal upon metal) during the erection of stands for the Tattoo. The interdict must be limited to preventing this specific nuisance, and not be so broad as to cover other undefined or speculative sources of noise. The court has no general discretion to refuse interdict where nuisance is established, and public interest does not override the pursuer's private rights under Scots law.

Citation
[1985] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer: Webster; First Defender: Lord Advocate (representing Secretary of State for Scotland); Second Defender: Tattoo Policy Committee
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 February 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil (nuisance/interdict) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed in part; interlocutor recalled in so far as it granted interdict in broad terms and suspended its operation for six months; new interdict granted limited to metallic construction noise.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Interdict (injunction), Noise Pollution, Landowner Rights, Public Interest Vs Private Rights
Civil Law Property Law Delict (tort) Remedies Nuisance Interdict (injunction) Noise Pollution Landowner Rights +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webster

Pursuer

Lord Advocate (representing Secretary of State for Scotland)

First Defender

Tattoo Policy Committee

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (nuisance/interdict) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the noise from the construction of stands for the Edinburgh Military Tattoo constitutes a nuisance to the pursuer as proprietor and occupier of 14 Ramsay Garden.
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the interdict granted were sufficiently precise and not overly broad.
  3. 3 Whether the court has discretion to refuse interdict where a nuisance is established, balancing public and private interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The only nuisance established was the metallic construction noise (clanging of metal upon metal) during the erection of stands for the Tattoo. The interdict must be limited to preventing this specific nuisance, and not be so broad as to cover other undefined or speculative sources of noise. The court has no general discretion to refuse interdict where nuisance is established, and public interest does not override the pursuer's private rights under Scots law.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed in part; interlocutor recalled in so far as it granted interdict in broad terms and suspended its operation for six months; new interdict granted limited to metallic construction noise.

Orders

  • Declarator granted that the second defenders caused a nuisance by reason of noise in the erection of stands for the Tattoo.
  • Interdict granted against the second defenders from constructing stands for the Edinburgh Military Tattoo or similar event on the esplanade at Edinburgh Castle in such manner as by reason of metallic construction noise to cause a nuisance to the pursuer as proprietor and occupier of 14 Ramsay Garden, Edinburgh.