Latest news with #nuisance
ABC News
3 days ago
- ABC News
Court hears Fosterville Gold Mine noise 'torturing' Axedale neighbours
Victoria's Supreme Court has heard noise from the state's biggest gold mine has turned a country home into "a place of torture". Kirsty McDonald and Karen Oliver have lodged a private nuisance claim, saying their home has become a "living hell" due to low-frequency noise from Fosterville Gold Mine's operations, 20 kilometres east of Bendigo. The Axedale couple's claim against the mine is being heard in a judge-alone civil trial in Victoria's Supreme Court. Fosterville Gold Mine unsuccessfully attempted to have the case dismissed late last year. The couple's barrister, Jonathan Korman, told the court on Thursday the mine had done "not one thing" to abate the noise or ameliorate the plaintiff's "extreme state of physical and mental suffering". Mr Korman said the couple had lived about 3km from the mine without issue for six years. That was until mid-2020 when ventilation shafts were moved above ground, he told the court. "It's common sense this noise is coming from the mine," Mr Korman said. Mr Korman alleged Fosterville Gold Mine used a "repetitive gaslighting approach" to noise complaints, taking measurements that repeatedly found no breach. "The subtle and insidious effect of this approach is to invalidate the complaint made," he said. Giving evidence on Thursday, Ms McDonald told the court for the first eight months after the noise started, she thought the mine was working with them to fix it. She said staff at the mine had initially agreed it was causing the noise, before retracting that view in April 2021. "I felt betrayed and made a fool of," Ms McDonald told the court. In the years since, she said her mental health had deteriorated, and the couple had resorted to sleeping in their car or "fleeing" to friends' homes. Mr Korman told the court two other residents living near the mine were expected to give evidence, including one who became a "chronic insomniac" and wears earplugs or headphones day and night. Martin Scott KC, representing Fosterville Gold Mine, told the court "exhaustive investigations were made in good faith" after complaints were received from the couple. Mr Scott said the mine modified its ventilation fans to the satisfaction of the Environment Protection Authority. The mine also rejects claims about how it dealt with the plaintiffs, he told the court. Mr Scott said evidence from acoustic experts would show differences in noise measurements taken simultaneously at the mine and the plaintiffs' home. He also said independent noise monitoring inside the Axedale home found levels were "below the threshold of audibility". The 10-day trial continues on Friday.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Can I sue my neighbor for stray cats on my property? What New York state law says
Neighborhood cats can be a nuisance, acting like they've moved in. Whether they're digging up your flower beds or yowling at midnight, stray cats can turn from cute to chaotic. When a neighbor is feeding them and encouraging their return, frustration can turn into a search for legal options. In a state with strong animal protection laws and a growing network of community cat programs, figuring out your rights may not be as simple as chasing the cats away. Is it legal? Can I remove my neighbor's fence if it's on my property? What New York state law allows In New York, the answer is complicated. You'll need more than a scratched lawn to win in court. You can't sue simply because cats wander onto your property. However, under Nuisance Laws, if the presence of stray cats causes ongoing, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your home, then you can file a private nuisance claim. This includes constant noise, visible feces, damage to gardens and/or vehicle scratches. However, it can be tricky to define whether a neighbor is responsible for a stray cat. Whether cats are owned, roaming or truly feral, they are considered to be 'companion animals' under Agriculture & Markets Law sections 353 and 353‑a. This law prohibits cruelty, neglect or poisoning. Thus, harming stray cats isn't allowed, even if they're trespassing. If your neighbor is actively feeding, sheltering or caring for stray cats, their actions could make them legally responsible because feeding can be seen as caretaking. Not ready for your closeup? Can my neighbor film me on my own property? What New York state law allows It's best to start by politely talking to your neighbor about the situation. You can at least try to ask your neighbors to stop feeding the cats. You can also contact your local animal control. Many towns offer trap, neuter and release options. Organizations like SPCA Westchester in Briarcliff Manor often step in to rescue animals in need. The group reportedly supported 789 feral cats with its trap and release program in 2024, according to the SPCA Westchester website. Learn more by calling 914-941-2896 or going to If you do turn to court, it will be a battle to win your case. In order to be successful, evidence must be provided that your neighbor's actions (like feeding the cats) caused substantial and unreasonable harm to your property, rising to a private nuisance. This includes photos or videos that prove damage, frequency and the persistence of the cat(s) coming onto the property. It is also essential to have proof that your neighbor is feeding or encouraging the cats. You'll need solid documentation, proof of causation and a clear legal basis under state tort law. If the cats are truly unowned or part of a community trap, neuter, and release program, legal options may be limited, and working through municipal or nonprofit channels can be more effective. This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: Is my neighbor allowed to feed stray cats in NY? Know your rights
Irish Times
07-07-2025
- Irish Times
Wexford wind farm not appealing full closure order for three turbines
A Co Wexford wind farm is not appealing a High Court order requiring it to close down three wind turbines fully. The High Court's Mr Justice Oisín Quinn, in a judgment last month, ruled Raymond Byrne and Lorna Moorhead were entitled to orders fully shutting down three of the six turbines at the Gibbett Hill Wind Farm near Bunclody. He awarded the couple €360,000 damages, including €60,000 aggravated damages, over the turbines' adverse impact on them. The judge later ordered the defendants – ABO Energy Ireland Ltd and ABO Energy O&M Ireland Ltd, operators of the wind farm, along with its owner, Wexwind Ltd, all with a registered address at Cornelscourt, Dublin – to pay out €950,000 this month towards the estimated €2.3m legal costs of the couple. The 28-day period for appealing has now expired and the couple's law firm – Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey Solicitors – has been informed there will be no appeal. READ MORE The three turbines, located about 1km from the couple's home, were shut down fully last month. In proceedings initiated seven years ago, the couple claimed the defendants wrongfully caused or permitted noise, vibration and shadow flicker to be emitted from the wind farm, which caused, and continues to cause them, stress, anxiety and sleep disturbance, 'destroyed' the use and enjoyment of their property and devalued it. The defendants had contested the claims, but last March, on the 11th day of the hearing, they admitted liability concerning claims of nuisance and switched off the turbines from 10pm to 7am daily. At the end of the six-week case on April 4th, the defendants apologised for the nuisance and said they would also switch off the turbines from 7am to 11am at weekends and public holidays, pay damages for nuisance to date and into the future and would address shadow flicker. In his judgment, the judge said the defendants had failed to engage 'in any meaningful way' with the 'genuine and substantive' complaints made by the couple over 12 years since the turbines began operating in 2013. Addressing wind turbine noise in a substantial way was 'critical' to the future success of wind as a big source of renewable energy, he said.
BBC News
03-07-2025
- Automotive
- BBC News
North Warwickshire plans to reinstate car cruising ban after surge
A ban on car cruising could be reinstated following a rise in incidents after the previous court order Warwickshire Borough Council's Safer Communities Sub-Committee heard that removal of signs relating to the expired order had led to the to disperse groups of two or more vehicles – cars or motorcycles – gathering, racing, performing stunts or creating a nuisance had been in place from August 2018 until June 2021, according to the authority's breaching the injunction could face "serious consequences", including up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or seizure of their assets, it said. Car cruising describes groups of vehicles driving in convoy, stunt performances and static meet-ups between car enthusiasts, and other events permitted by authority added the powers, which have to be signed off by the High Court, are usually time-limited."We took down the signage around the car cruising injunction because it was out of date," said council officer Julie Taylor."Immediately we had problems on this patch as a result of people being aware that the signage had come down."The new injunction could be in place within the next month, she said, adding that the problem was "primarily" caused to people coming from outside the area."We already have a statement sorted, the evidence from the police and information from businesses so we can move on it quite quickly," she said. This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations. Follow BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Sky News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Calls for Scotland-wide seagull summit amid warnings someone could be killed
Politicians have called for a Scotland-wide seagull summit to be held amid warnings someone could be killed. Former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross told the Scottish parliament during a debate on the issue that people risk losing their lives over the "growing problem" of "nuisance" gulls. Scots are being left "scared, attacked and traumatised", fellow Tory Rachael Hamilton said as she called for a nationwide summit to tackle the issue. Ms Hamilton said "aggressive" seagulls had attacked seven children in one month last year in Eyemouth, leaving one girl "with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face". Agriculture minister Jim Fairlie had already promised to hold a seagull summit in the north of Scotland, but Ms Hamilton, who represents the south of Scotland, said a summit for the whole country is necessary. The Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire MSP called for action on the "growing nuisance", which she said posed a health and safety risk to residents. Ms Hamilton said the debate was "important" as she criticised what she said was a lack of action from the Scottish government, telling MSPs that "absolutely nothing" was getting done. "Aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause a real concern amongst businesses, amongst tourists, amongst everybody that has anything to do along the harbour," she said about her constituency in Eyemouth. She said one business owner had described the situation as "people being scared, attacked and traumatised". 'Extremely serious issue' Mr Ross said during the debate in Scottish parliament on Thursday, one day before summer recess, that people would often "smirk" when hearing that the Scottish Parliament was debating the problems around gulls - but he said it was an "extremely serious issue". The Highlands and Islands MSP said constituents have told him they were worried about leaving their homes for fear of being "divebombed", while others have suffered mental health issues thanks to a lack of sleep caused by noisy gulls. He accused NatureScot of having a conflict of interest as the body responsible for both the licensing to control birds and to conserve them. He went on: "The behaviour of the SNP's quango NatureScot confirms they have lost the plot. They have told people to protect themselves with umbrellas and even suggested dogs as a deterrent. "The time has come to break up NatureScot. There is a clear conflict of interest in the fact they are responsible for considering licences to control gulls but are also responsible for protecting bird numbers." He added: "The strength of the cross-party support in my debate today should be all the SNP government need to finally act before we see someone killed due to being attacked by a gull." Jim Fairlie, the minister for agriculture, warned that the issue of gulls was "deadly serious", but said that he could not intervene on NatureScot to change the licensing system because it would leave the government open to judicial review. He urged people to stop feeding the birds, which he said was the primary reason for the issue.
