Case Summary: Syarikat Perniagaan Selangor Sdn Bhd v Fahro Rozi Mohdi & Ors [1981] 1 MLRA 571 FC
Court: Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur.
Judges: Chang Min Tat J, Salleh Abas J, & Abdul Hamid FJJ.
Date: 30 January 1981.
Background
The appellant held a lease for approximately 8.5 acres of land designated for use as a tourist complex, specifically a skating rink, restaurant, and drive-in cinema. Despite these restrictions, the appellant constructed an open-air stage for live music bands and operated a discotheque on a junk. The respondents, neighboring landowners, filed an action for nuisance due to the intolerable noise generated by these activities, which were electronically amplified.
Issue
Whether the noise created by the appellant’s business activities constituted an actionable nuisance justifying an injunction, and whether a landowner has an absolute right to use their land in any manner regardless of the impact on neighbors.
Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s injunction. The court ruled that while some noise is inevitable in urban life, no one has the right to create noise of such intensity that it becomes a nuisance by reasonable standards. The appellant’s claim to an absolute right to use their land as they pleased was rejected as unsupportable by law.
Relevant Quotes from the Court
- On the Limits of Noise in Society:
“Noise in urban society there inevitably will be. Anyone living in town must expect to have to put up with a certain volume of noise from his neighbours and he, in turn, must have the right to make a certain amount of noise in the enjoyment of his property. But it is just as clear that no one has the right to create a volume of noise of such intensity and no one should be asked to put up with such a volume which by any reasonable standard becomes a nuisance.”
- On Landowner Rights and Responsibilities:
“The appellant’s first contention that as the registered and legal owner of the land, it can use its land in any manner it pleases it to use, no matter what the effect on the neighbours may be, is unsupportable by law or reason or good sense and must be rejected outright.”
- On the Impact of Electronic Amplification:
“But he [counsel for the appellant] made no concession to the amplification of the noise by electronic means, a process to which there appears to have no limitation and which would make nonsense of the distance of between 100 and 200 yards that lay between the houses and the sources.”
- On the Standard for Injunction:
“Intervention by injunction is only justified when the irritating noise causes inconvenience beyond what other occupiers in the neighbourhood can be expected to bear. The neighbour who is complaining must remember, too, that the other man can use his property in a reasonable way and there must be a measure of give and take, live and let live.”
- On Judicial Power to Regulate Conduct:
“…noise above a certain level becomes a nuisance and can be stopped by the inherent powers of the court to regulate the lives of the people.”
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
