IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT CHESTER 2025-CC-1902
BETWEEN:
MS DIANE GEORGE
Claimant/Applicant
and
MS NADIA WAHID
Defendant/Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
Introduction
1. The Claimant (‘C’) makes an application for a prohibitory interim injunction to restrain the
Defendant (‘D’) from committing acts which amount to private nuisance against C’s
premise.
2. The terms of the injunction sought are set out in the draft order.
Pre-reading
3. The court is likely to require 2 hours for the pre-reading listed below:
a. Particulars of Claim (dated 1 October 2025);
1
, b. C’s 1st witness statement ((dated 14 October 2025 (‘WS/ DG) and Exhibits
DG/1–DG/4);
c. C’s witness statement ((dated 20 October 2025 (‘WS/ DG) and Exhibits DG/5);
d. Defendant’s letter (dated 16 October 2025) denying nuisance and asserting
“ordinary business activity”;
e. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 395 (the applicable guidelines
by which a court will be directed when asked to grant a prohibitory interim
injunction) (WB 2024 5 Vol 2, para 15-7);
f. Fellowes & Son v Fisher [1976] 1 QB 122 (when approaching the second
principle in American Cyanamid, it is best to do it in two stages) (WB 2024 5
Vol 2, para 15-10);
g. Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] AC 882, paras [1] – [5] (principles governing
an action in private nuisance); and
h. Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88 — nuisance by noise, and the
appropriateness of partial injunctions;
Factual Background
4. C is the freehold owner and resident operator of Hotel Le Grand, a 12-room Georgian
boutique hotel in Chester catering primarily to an older, quiet clientele (WS/DG1 para 1–
2).
5. D is the owner and occupier of Château Wahidi, an adjacent hotel at 8 Old Horns Lane.
Three months ago, D relaunched the hotel, targeting a younger clientele and hosting
events such as birthdays and hen parties. As part of this relaunch, D constructed a new
2
BETWEEN:
MS DIANE GEORGE
Claimant/Applicant
and
MS NADIA WAHID
Defendant/Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
Introduction
1. The Claimant (‘C’) makes an application for a prohibitory interim injunction to restrain the
Defendant (‘D’) from committing acts which amount to private nuisance against C’s
premise.
2. The terms of the injunction sought are set out in the draft order.
Pre-reading
3. The court is likely to require 2 hours for the pre-reading listed below:
a. Particulars of Claim (dated 1 October 2025);
1
, b. C’s 1st witness statement ((dated 14 October 2025 (‘WS/ DG) and Exhibits
DG/1–DG/4);
c. C’s witness statement ((dated 20 October 2025 (‘WS/ DG) and Exhibits DG/5);
d. Defendant’s letter (dated 16 October 2025) denying nuisance and asserting
“ordinary business activity”;
e. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 395 (the applicable guidelines
by which a court will be directed when asked to grant a prohibitory interim
injunction) (WB 2024 5 Vol 2, para 15-7);
f. Fellowes & Son v Fisher [1976] 1 QB 122 (when approaching the second
principle in American Cyanamid, it is best to do it in two stages) (WB 2024 5
Vol 2, para 15-10);
g. Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] AC 882, paras [1] – [5] (principles governing
an action in private nuisance); and
h. Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88 — nuisance by noise, and the
appropriateness of partial injunctions;
Factual Background
4. C is the freehold owner and resident operator of Hotel Le Grand, a 12-room Georgian
boutique hotel in Chester catering primarily to an older, quiet clientele (WS/DG1 para 1–
2).
5. D is the owner and occupier of Château Wahidi, an adjacent hotel at 8 Old Horns Lane.
Three months ago, D relaunched the hotel, targeting a younger clientele and hosting
events such as birthdays and hen parties. As part of this relaunch, D constructed a new
2
