Expert Evidence – Wedding Venue

Background

In July 2025, Hayes McKenzie were instructed by a local authority in Wales (through their Legal Services department) to provide expert evidence on noise in relation to an appeal against 2 noise abatement notices served under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The council issued the two noise abatement notices in 2024, both of which detailed very similar alleged noise nuisances relating to the operation of a wedding venue. The venue appealed both notices, filing a claim with Cardiff Magistrates’ Court that cited 6 statutory grounds for appeal from those listed under regulation 2(2) of the Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995. Two of these grounds, ((a) and (e) in the regulations) relate specifically to the nature of the alleged nuisance, which in this case was noise.

Details

In the letter of instruction, the council’s Legal Services department set out a number of questions focussing on whether the notices were justified (ground a) and whether or not best practical means were employed (ground e). The letter of instruction also requested that the alleged nuisances be considered in the context of a recent Supreme Court ruling (Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4) drawing attention to whether or not the use of the venue could be considered ‘common’ and ‘ordinary’ and whether or not it had been carried out ‘conveniently’.

The appellant’s evidence focussed on measures set out to mitigate noise impact within a noise management plan that the venue was required to adhere to as part of conditions attached to a planning permission. The council’s evidence included witness statements and noise measurements gathered by the Shared Regulatory Services team. Once all evidence had been disclosed, this was issued to Hayes Mckenzie and Seth Roberts reviewed the evidence, including expert evidence on noise, witness statements, and planning documents, before writing his own expert report. In relation to the grounds for appeal, the report stated his professional opinion that the abatement notices were justified and that basic steps to investigate whether best practicable means had been employed were not taken. In relation to the recent supreme court ruling, Seth’s interpretation and expert opinion was that the use of the venue may have been outside of what could ordinarily be expected and that it was not carried out conveniently.

The Outcome

Following submission of the expert witness report, Seth Roberts was not asked to attend the trial scheduled for 2026 and it is understood that the appellant conceded that the strength of their evidence in relation to grounds for appeal was not sufficient. Since there was no trial there was no judgement regarding the alleged nuisances but the there was an agreed way forward and a District Judge issued a consent order. The order set out that the venue was permitted to continue operating until the end of the 2025 wedding season, after which its operations were to cease and a contribution towards legal costs incurred by the council would be payable.

The findings set out in Seth’s expert report were helpful in addressing some key questions, avoiding the need to go to trial. The resolution of the appeal at this stage no doubt saved significant legal costs for both the council and the appellant.