County Court Claim
Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court
In late 2021, Hayes McKenzie were instructed by the criminal law department of Edwards Duthie Shamash to provide expert evidence on noise in relation to a claim for contempt of court. The claim related to a previous legal dispute (at the same court) in which their client had agreed, with the district judge, to sign an undertaking as a way of resolving this dispute with the claimant. The undertaking set out a number of points pertaining to how their client would behave in relation to a neighbour and in particular, it included a point promising not to behave in a way that would cause nuisance to this neighbour. The claim for contempt of court was brought by a housing association acting on behalf of the neighbour who asserted in their witness statement that the undertaking had been breached.
The claim focussed on the nuisance aspect of the undertaking and relied heavily on CCTV evidence from the neighbour who claimed to have been disturbed by noise on a number of occasions. In the letter of instruction, Shaun Murphy of Edwards Duthie Shamash set out a number of questions relating to the level of noise that could reasonably have been generated by his client, whether or not this might be expected to cause a nuisance and what could be adduced from the CCTV evidence.
Hayes Mckenzie visited the clients flat to measure sound levels from the equipment used to play music and to carry out investigations into the sound insulation offered to the communal corridor and neighbouring flat. Seth Roberts reviewed the evidence, including witness statements, photographs and CCTV footage before writing an expert report. In relation to amplified music, the report stated that equipment in the flat was capable of generating levels which could be perceived as loud immediately outside the entrance to the client’s flat but the equipment was not capable of producing any appreciable levels of sound in the lower frequencies and, as such, would be unlikely to be perceived as anything other than ‘quiet’ anywhere else in the building. With regard to the CCTV evidence, it was noted that audio from the videos had a low bit rate and low quality such that it could not be relied on to indicate anything about actual sound levels at the time of recordings. The report concluded that nothing other than screaming or shouting within the communal corridor could be expected to have the potential to create a nuisance.
A District Judge heard the evidence in June 2022 and found that none of the 19 allegations set out in the claim had been proved. In the judgement it was noted that it was necessary to apply the criminal standard of proof before coming to a contrary finding, and that there was insufficient evidence to be sure that the undertaking had been breached.
The Judge particularly relied upon Seth’s expert report, which was considered to be a significant factor, and helpful in allowing them to reach a judgement in this case.