Hanrahan v Merck Sharp & Dohme (Ireland) Limited .....so it was just a smell, just like seroxatUSERgroup - FIDDAMAN

This is an extract from the Judgement of Henchy J. in "Mary Hanrahan, John Hanrahan and Selina Hanrahan v Merck Sharp & Dohme (Ireland) Limited"




The Supreme Court



1982, No 2138 P 1985 No 316, (Transcript)

In which he adressed the issue of nuisance, it is thought possible that 'noise' could be substituted for 'smell'.



"where the conduct relied on as constituting a nuisance is said to be an interference with the plaintiffs comfort in the enjoyment of his property, the test is whether the interference is beyond what an objectively reasonable person should have to put up with in the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff is not entitled to insist that his personal nicety of taste or fastidiousness of requirements should be treated as inviolable. The case for damages in nuisance -- we are not concerned here with the question of an injunction -- is made out if the interference is so pronounced and prolonged or repeated that a person of normal or average sensibilities should not be expected to put up with it. It is not necessary that an interference by objectionable smell should be so odious or damaging that it affects the plaintiffs' health. It is enough if it can be said that a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' circumstances should not be expected to tolerate the smell without requiring the defendants, to make financial amends. I consider that the plaintiffs have made out such a case."