Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 47
Nuisance claims: A recent
decision highlights the key
role of expert evidence
by Matt Cordwent, Associate & Lauren Hunt, Trainee Solicitor at Charles Russell Speechlys.
extent, impact and frequency of the dust emissions
su昀昀ered by them was su昀케cient to constitute a
substantial interference with the enjoyment of their
properties.”
Background
The case of Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited
[2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC) concerned Kronospan
Limited’s operation of its factory located in Chirk, a
small town to the south of Wrexham. The Claimants’
(a test group of residents of Chirk) claim was that
the factory had emitted dust, noise and odour to
such an extent that it constituted a legal nuisance.
In making its decision the Court referred to one
of the leading cases on nuisance, Fearn & Ors v
Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC
4 and highlighted that the Claimants must su昀昀er a
diminution in the utility and amenity value of their
land in order to succeed. The Claimants had not
established the necessary diminution and personal
discomfort alone was not su昀케cient.
Importantly, the claim did not concern any
allegations of personal injury as a result of the
emissions from the factory.
Kronospan’s defence was that the impact of its
factory was below the level of intensity or continuity
that would be necessary for the emissions to be a
legal nuisance. Kronospan added that its factory
operations: (1) formed part of the existing pattern
of uses in the locality; (2) had been tightly regulated
to mitigate any environmental impact; and (3)
constituted an ordinary and reasonable user of
the site. Finally, and as an alternative argument,
Kronospan sought to rely on the defence of
prescription. Kronospan asserted that because the
Claimants had tolerated the emissions for a long
period of time without objection, they should now
be prevented from bringing a claim in relation to
those emissions.
Concerning Kronospan’s second defence, the Court
was satis昀椀ed that Kronospan was appropriately
regulated (and complied with those regulations).
However, it did comment that compliance alone
should be taken as the minimum standard to meet
in industrial nuisance cases.
The importance of expert evidence
The decision is lengthy (running to over 1,000
paragraphs) and provides a helpful summary of the
key facts to establish for a nuisance claim to succeed.
The Defendant’s use of its land must amount to
a substantial interference with the Claimant’s
ordinary use of its land. This is assessed objectively
and, as in Kronospan, will usually require expert
evidence.
This case highlights practical evidential issues
surrounding nuisance claims and the importance
of expert evidence in determining whether an
interference with the use of the land has been made.
While not the sole reason that the Claimants were
unsuccessful, the Court strongly criticised the
Claimants’ expert’s evidence and emphasised the
need for experts to maintain the essential principle
of independence.
Decision
Ultimately, after the dust had settled, the Court
dismissed the claims for nuisance. The Court
decided that the dust did not amount to a nuisance,
stating that “the claims made by each of the lead
Claimants fail. They fail because, on my assessment
of the evidence, I do not accept that the nature,
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
One point of criticism concerned the decision of the
Claimants’ experts to change their methodology
(including by adjusting the input data from what
had previously been agreed between the parties’
45
APRIL 2026
