Full Judgement from Court of Appeal
go to
www.bailii.org
and search for case of Watson v Croft Promo-Sport Ltd which is
[2009] EWCA Civ 15
Not an easy read but in essence in the Court of Appeal which was hearing cross appeals from the original High Court Judgement says ;-
The Judge was entitled to find that the amount of track days etc DID amount to a nuisance and that the established planning use did not overide the claimants rights under the law of nuisance.
The Judge was within his legitimate discretion in saying the track should only operate 40 Noisy days per year, and they would not interfere with his finding as to that even if the Court of Appeal itself might have felt the figure should be lower or higher.
The fact the claimants "moved to the nuisance in 1990's" (albeit with much less track activity then) DOES NOT as a matter of Law provide a defence for the track operators. The Judge was bound by a previous House of Lords precedent.
The fact they had delayed their claim in nuisance whilst Mrs Wilson at least, had an interest in the Circuit through her then husband Jimmy Wilson, did not prevent them bringing their claim. There had been historic attempts through planning appeals, the local Councils and Parish Councils to restrict or reduce noise nuisance in which the claimants had participated over the past 7 or 8 years.
The track had always sought to properly complied with significant noise restrictions imposed at various times during the planning history.
The Judge had been wrong though to seek to compensate the claimants by awarding damages but not granting the injunction they asked for. The Court of Appeal imposed the injunction limiting noisy days to 40 per year which enable all currently staged public motor races to be run but in practice severely curtails track days, testing etc which were the real focus of the complaints.
As losers of the case Croft are, as is quite ususal, liable to pay the winners legal costs of £700,000
(£120,000 immediately and the remainder subject to negotiation or further argument ) but the damages due to the claimants for loss of value of their homes are reduced considerably as the injunction means the claimants can now sell their homes with the situation stabilised.
-----------------------------
Hope that helps some of you understand how the ruling was reached even if commonsense and fairness doesn't seem to enter in to it from a motorsport fans point of view.
I've looked, when's it likely to be published, Tim?
and try to find a transcript of the Judgement but I won't be able to link to it until it's on a subscrption free service.
on legal fees, to get awarded just £150k? 
That's £700k on the line, unless they won.
