News
Attorneys-at-law Merilin Ojasaar and Epp Lumiste of LEADELL Pilv Law Firm successfully represented a client in a dispute over constant noise pollution emanating from a neighbouring property.
The central issue in the dispute was whether the plaintiff was obligated to tolerate the constant and incessant barking of dogs emanating from a dog shelter operated by a neighbour in a sparsely populated area. The dogs at the shelter (whose number was constantly changing) caused significant noise disturbances, and the barking was constant and unceasing (with only longer periods of silence at night). The constant noise disturbance prevented the clients from living on their property and using it (the barking could be heard indoors and daily while outdoors on the property).
The court evaluated the evidence presented in the proceedings and reasonably concluded that the client had no obligation to tolerate such incessant noise under § 143(1) of the Law of Property Act.
Why is this case significant? The court ruling confirmed that if a dog shelter or boarding facility is operated on residential land, such activity must respect the rights of neighbours. In its decision, the court also found that even if there are no national noise standards regarding the volume of dog barking, this does not mean that dogs kept at a shelter can bark incessantly and that neighbours must tolerate such noise disturbance. With this ruling, the court confirmed that neighbours have no obligation under § 143 of the Law of Obligations Act to tolerate constant barking by dogs.
The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs in the amount of more than 11,000 euros.
This is a first-instance court ruling, which the defendant may appeal to the Tallinn Circuit Court if necessary.
Categories
Subscribe to Leadell's Newsletter
