《年长宁区公办幼儿园招生地段表所.ppt

Ps’claim: Defendants owed the owners and occupiers of the properties neighbouring Luna Park, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of economic loss with respect to their properties. - IE they tried to avoid the nuisance provision, by claiming that Luna Park has caused a negligent infliction of economic loss to owners of adjacent properties. D’s claim: the standing of the plaintiffs to injunctive relief depends upon the exposure of their properties to noise emissions, and that on that basis proceedings on the Injunction Claim are “with respect to the emission of noise”. . Held: The claim is not a claim with respect to the emission of noise from the Luna Park site, and is not barred by s 19A(1). However, the Negligence Claim is not maintainable by reason of s 19A, and ought to be struck out (Brereton J) [37] The phrase “with respect to” is one of “the widest possible connection” having “the widest possible meaning of any expression intended to convey some connection or relation between the two subject-matters to which the wods refer”: Maritime Services Board v Murray (1993) 52 IR 455. [43] Here, P is saying that they’re relying on “loss of amenity”. D arguing that such loss of amenity MUST be exposure to noise. Given that noise was only part of it, Brereton J said that s19A doesn’t prevent the P from having standing to sue for injunctive relief. HOWEVER: the negligence claim based on a duty (which D argued) which P argued “to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of economic loss with respect to their properties.” They are arguing that the operating of the thrill rides have caused, and will continue to cause, economic loss and damage. Damage claimed is the loss of value occasioned by ongoing exposure to noise. THEN s19A(1) has the effect that no proceedings lie with respect to such emissions, and no REMEDY is available in respect of them. * Wht about malicious intent? - Where D’s conduct even slightly malicious, P can claim Hollywood Si