ORAL SUBMISSION SCRIPT (ADVOCACY SPEECH)
May it please the Court.
My name is …, and I appear on behalf of the Claimant, Ms Light, in this
application for a PROHIBITORY INTERIM INJUNCTION to restrain the
Defendant, Mr Moore, from continuing acts of PRIVATE NUISANCE AND
HARASSMENT.
Your Honour, I will structure my submissions as follows:
1. A brief summary of the facts
2. The three-limb test for interim relief under American Cyanamid and section
37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
3. Why the balance of convenience lies with the Claimant
4. A note on the Court’s discretion under statute
Before I proceed, MAY I CHECK whether Your Honour has had an opportunity to read
the SKELETON ARGUMENT, reviewed the evidence papers, and is familiar with the facts
of the case?
If NO: Thank you, Your Honour. I will now give summary of the facts…
Your Honour, the facts are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the skeleton
argument.
The Claimant, Ms Light, is a 62-year-old woman of ILL HEALTH, living
alone. The Defendant, Mr Moore, is her neighbour.
Since late December 2023, Mr Moore has engaged in a deliberate,
escalating pattern of conduct: hammering, stomping, banging walls …
often LATE AT NIGHT, often for HOURS AT A TIME..
This is NOT isolated. This is NOT accidental. This is a daily campaign of
INTENTIONAL disturbance.
The evidence shows:
Over 40 logged incidents in LL2 … the Claimant’s incident log.
LL3, audio recordings of distressing volume.
LL4, photos of visible wall damage.
And LL6, a GP letter recommending she leave her home for her
health.
,Despite efforts to resolve matters informally and through housing
services...see exhibit ll5, Mr Moore’s conduct has only intensified.
Ms Light now seeks interim relief — NOT to win her case today, but to
PROTECT her from FURTHER harm while this case is resolved under section
37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
(IF YES) thank you your honour, I will start by discussing the Legal Test..
The Court’s power to grant this injunction comes FROM SECTION 37 subsection 1 OF
THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981, which authorises this Court to grant an
injunction WHERE IT IS JUST AND CONVENIENT TO DO SO.
The applicable test is set out in American Cyanamid Co and Ethicon Ltd [1975], and
summarised at paragraph 9 of the skeleton. The Court must ask:
1. Is there a SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED?
2. Are DAMAGES AN ADEQUATE REMEDY?
3. Where does the BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE lie?
We submit that ALL THREE LIMBS ARE satisfied here.
Your Honour, there clearly IS — in BOTH private nuisance and harassment.
In Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940], private nuisance was defined as a substantial
and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land.
That is EXACTLY what we have here..
At paragraph 7 of Ms Light’s witness statement..
And in LL2 and LL3.. this conduct is CONSTANT, UNWELCOME, and
MALICIOUS.
It goes FAR BEYOND reasonable domestic living.
In Coventry v Lawrence [2014], the Supreme Court made clear that nuisance can arise even
from established or regular activities, ESPECIALLY where the character of the
area and sensitivity of the claimant are relevant.
This is a quiet residential block.
And the Defendant’s behaviour is GROSSLY out of step with that.
(Is he running a business?
No, Your Honour.
And that makes this nuisance less justifiable.. not more.)
,Additionally, the behaviour is arguably HARASSMENT under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, which prohibits any course of conduct that causes alarm or
distress, as we clearly see here.
In Exhibit LL5…the refusal letter...it shows he WAS ASKED to stop….He DECLINED.
This is DELIBERATE.. SUSTAINED… AND.. UNREASONABLE.
So I say.. IF THIS ISN’T a serious issue… WHAT WOULD BE?
Now… turning to if damages are adequate…
Respectfully, Your Honour, the harm suffered by Ms Light is NOT compensable in
damages.
- The GP letter under exhibit LL6 states that she should not remain in the property.
This is not lost sleep.. it is loss of dignity, peace, and health.
In Dennis and MOD [2003], the High Court accepted that noise nuisance affecting quality
of life and business could NOT be remedied by money alone.
Here, Ms Light’s home has become a prison of anxiety.
We submit that NO financial sum could make her whole again. What she needs is:
RELIEF... NOW…
(But is there any formal psychiatric report?)
Your Honour, the threshold at this stage is NOT expert evidence — it
is credible evidence of harm. The GP letter and Claimant’s statement
are ample for interim relief.
Wouldn’t damages be available at trial if she succeeds?
Perhaps, Your Honour. But by then, the damage will be DONE and the reuputation of the
business will have been lost, which the claimant, herself will have to rebuild again. This is
about preserving her right to safety and sanity during proceedings.)
And again — the Defendant will have his day at trial. But what does Ms
Light have if this application fails? Another month of sleep
deprivation? Another panic attack?
We submit… damages are plainly inadequate.
Moving onto.. where does the balance lie, Your Honour?
, On one hand, we have the Claimant — a VULNERABLE woman — facing DAILY
psychological harm in her OWN home.
On the other, the Defendant — who faces a TEMPORARY restriction
on excessive, deliberate noise, and NOTHING more.
The draft order ..at Schedule A ..makes this clear.
Mr Moore may go about his ordinary household life.
This is NOT an oppressive gag..it is a SHIELD against DELIBERATE harassment.
(Isn’t there a risk this could inflame an already difficult neighbour dispute?
Respectfully, Your Honour…the dispute IS ALREADY inflamed.
Lucie Light has been driven to THIS courtroom because there are no other options.
This order does NOT escalate tensions…it CONTAINS them.)
Without the Court’s protection, the Claimant must choose between:
ENDURING this campaign of nuisance and harassment, or
FLEEING her home of 12 years.
That is NOT justice.
We also say this.. the Court in American Cyanamid emphasised the importance of
maintaining the status quo.
We submit the relevant status quo is the status quo ante.. the situation before this campaign
began in December.
The injunction does NOT impose anything new. It seeks to restore that peaceful baseline.
And so the question becomes:
What is more disruptive…to ask the Defendant to refrain from deliberate banging and hostile
late-night noise…
OR to leave the Claimant UNPROTECTED in the place where she should feel SAFEST?
The balance of convenience lies SQUARELY with the Claimant.
NOW, TURNING TO THE COURT’S DISCRETION.. and the question of FAIRNESS.
Your Honour, under section 37 subsection 1 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, this Court may
grant an injunction where it is just and convenient to do so.
We say that it CLEARLY is.
This is a measured, proportionate response to an escalating nuisance.
May it please the Court.
My name is …, and I appear on behalf of the Claimant, Ms Light, in this
application for a PROHIBITORY INTERIM INJUNCTION to restrain the
Defendant, Mr Moore, from continuing acts of PRIVATE NUISANCE AND
HARASSMENT.
Your Honour, I will structure my submissions as follows:
1. A brief summary of the facts
2. The three-limb test for interim relief under American Cyanamid and section
37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
3. Why the balance of convenience lies with the Claimant
4. A note on the Court’s discretion under statute
Before I proceed, MAY I CHECK whether Your Honour has had an opportunity to read
the SKELETON ARGUMENT, reviewed the evidence papers, and is familiar with the facts
of the case?
If NO: Thank you, Your Honour. I will now give summary of the facts…
Your Honour, the facts are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the skeleton
argument.
The Claimant, Ms Light, is a 62-year-old woman of ILL HEALTH, living
alone. The Defendant, Mr Moore, is her neighbour.
Since late December 2023, Mr Moore has engaged in a deliberate,
escalating pattern of conduct: hammering, stomping, banging walls …
often LATE AT NIGHT, often for HOURS AT A TIME..
This is NOT isolated. This is NOT accidental. This is a daily campaign of
INTENTIONAL disturbance.
The evidence shows:
Over 40 logged incidents in LL2 … the Claimant’s incident log.
LL3, audio recordings of distressing volume.
LL4, photos of visible wall damage.
And LL6, a GP letter recommending she leave her home for her
health.
,Despite efforts to resolve matters informally and through housing
services...see exhibit ll5, Mr Moore’s conduct has only intensified.
Ms Light now seeks interim relief — NOT to win her case today, but to
PROTECT her from FURTHER harm while this case is resolved under section
37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
(IF YES) thank you your honour, I will start by discussing the Legal Test..
The Court’s power to grant this injunction comes FROM SECTION 37 subsection 1 OF
THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981, which authorises this Court to grant an
injunction WHERE IT IS JUST AND CONVENIENT TO DO SO.
The applicable test is set out in American Cyanamid Co and Ethicon Ltd [1975], and
summarised at paragraph 9 of the skeleton. The Court must ask:
1. Is there a SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED?
2. Are DAMAGES AN ADEQUATE REMEDY?
3. Where does the BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE lie?
We submit that ALL THREE LIMBS ARE satisfied here.
Your Honour, there clearly IS — in BOTH private nuisance and harassment.
In Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940], private nuisance was defined as a substantial
and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land.
That is EXACTLY what we have here..
At paragraph 7 of Ms Light’s witness statement..
And in LL2 and LL3.. this conduct is CONSTANT, UNWELCOME, and
MALICIOUS.
It goes FAR BEYOND reasonable domestic living.
In Coventry v Lawrence [2014], the Supreme Court made clear that nuisance can arise even
from established or regular activities, ESPECIALLY where the character of the
area and sensitivity of the claimant are relevant.
This is a quiet residential block.
And the Defendant’s behaviour is GROSSLY out of step with that.
(Is he running a business?
No, Your Honour.
And that makes this nuisance less justifiable.. not more.)
,Additionally, the behaviour is arguably HARASSMENT under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, which prohibits any course of conduct that causes alarm or
distress, as we clearly see here.
In Exhibit LL5…the refusal letter...it shows he WAS ASKED to stop….He DECLINED.
This is DELIBERATE.. SUSTAINED… AND.. UNREASONABLE.
So I say.. IF THIS ISN’T a serious issue… WHAT WOULD BE?
Now… turning to if damages are adequate…
Respectfully, Your Honour, the harm suffered by Ms Light is NOT compensable in
damages.
- The GP letter under exhibit LL6 states that she should not remain in the property.
This is not lost sleep.. it is loss of dignity, peace, and health.
In Dennis and MOD [2003], the High Court accepted that noise nuisance affecting quality
of life and business could NOT be remedied by money alone.
Here, Ms Light’s home has become a prison of anxiety.
We submit that NO financial sum could make her whole again. What she needs is:
RELIEF... NOW…
(But is there any formal psychiatric report?)
Your Honour, the threshold at this stage is NOT expert evidence — it
is credible evidence of harm. The GP letter and Claimant’s statement
are ample for interim relief.
Wouldn’t damages be available at trial if she succeeds?
Perhaps, Your Honour. But by then, the damage will be DONE and the reuputation of the
business will have been lost, which the claimant, herself will have to rebuild again. This is
about preserving her right to safety and sanity during proceedings.)
And again — the Defendant will have his day at trial. But what does Ms
Light have if this application fails? Another month of sleep
deprivation? Another panic attack?
We submit… damages are plainly inadequate.
Moving onto.. where does the balance lie, Your Honour?
, On one hand, we have the Claimant — a VULNERABLE woman — facing DAILY
psychological harm in her OWN home.
On the other, the Defendant — who faces a TEMPORARY restriction
on excessive, deliberate noise, and NOTHING more.
The draft order ..at Schedule A ..makes this clear.
Mr Moore may go about his ordinary household life.
This is NOT an oppressive gag..it is a SHIELD against DELIBERATE harassment.
(Isn’t there a risk this could inflame an already difficult neighbour dispute?
Respectfully, Your Honour…the dispute IS ALREADY inflamed.
Lucie Light has been driven to THIS courtroom because there are no other options.
This order does NOT escalate tensions…it CONTAINS them.)
Without the Court’s protection, the Claimant must choose between:
ENDURING this campaign of nuisance and harassment, or
FLEEING her home of 12 years.
That is NOT justice.
We also say this.. the Court in American Cyanamid emphasised the importance of
maintaining the status quo.
We submit the relevant status quo is the status quo ante.. the situation before this campaign
began in December.
The injunction does NOT impose anything new. It seeks to restore that peaceful baseline.
And so the question becomes:
What is more disruptive…to ask the Defendant to refrain from deliberate banging and hostile
late-night noise…
OR to leave the Claimant UNPROTECTED in the place where she should feel SAFEST?
The balance of convenience lies SQUARELY with the Claimant.
NOW, TURNING TO THE COURT’S DISCRETION.. and the question of FAIRNESS.
Your Honour, under section 37 subsection 1 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, this Court may
grant an injunction where it is just and convenient to do so.
We say that it CLEARLY is.
This is a measured, proportionate response to an escalating nuisance.
