Published on June 8, 2020
1. AZMAN BIN MOHD YUSSOF & ORS V VASAGA SDN BHD  6 MLJ 217 HIGH COURT (PULAU PINANG) CHONG XIAU XUAN IMAN ALISYA AMALIA SULAIMAN FATIHAH AROF ANIRA PETER @UKM LAW SCHOOL 2020
2. Defendant operated a disco & pub “Vasaga Exclusive Dance Club & KTV” There was a building which classified as residence and commercial purposes Plaintiff as residents no longer had peace Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang had no objection for such activities
3. 1. Whether the Defendant’s act constitutes a private nuisance? WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? 2. Whether an injunction should be given? 3
4. Syarikat Perniagaan Selangor Sdn Bhd v Fahro Rozi Mohdi & Ors  2 MLJ 16 ‘The noise was excessive and intolerable and was an actionable nuisance and that the respondents were entitled to the injunction.’ 4
5. Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (Ed. 17th) ‘Nuisance, in essence, is a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use and enjoyment of land …. It is an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to, a person in the exercise or enjoyment of his ownership or occupation of land or of some easement, profit or the right used or enjoyed in connection with land, which is a private nuisance’ 5
6. Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd  Unreasonable noise and vibration that ‘interferes with one’s enjoyment, one’s quiet, one’s personal freedom, and anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves’. 6
7. 1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS PLAINTIFF: AZMAN BIN MOHD YUSSOF & ORS
8. 8 Plaintiff applied for Injunction to restrain the defendant from operating a disco on the grounds that the business has disturbed their peace, tranquility & safety resulting from loud music.
9. 9 Plaintiffs suffered sleeping difficulties and had to consume sleeping pills in order to sleep.
10. 10 Plaintiffs claimed several nuisances such as deafening ‘techno’ sounds creating vibrations on the floors, the walls and outsiders wandering around in apartment’s public facility.
11. 2.DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS DEFENDANT: VASAGA SDN BHD 11
12. 12 The defendant denied the accusations and said that the plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous, baseless and vexatious.
13. 13 The defendant only operated during the trial run and the sound of the music was under control.
14. 14 There was no objection from the authorities which controlled the operation of the business.
15. 15 The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was mala fide.
16. JUDGMENT ◍ Nuisance ◍ -‘nuisance’, ‘in essence is a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use and enjoyment of land. The disturbance of a person in the exercise and enjoyment of profit or the right used in connection with the land. ◍ - loud techno music, vibrations to the floor and walls, interferes with one’s enjoyment, one’s quiet, one’s personal freedom, and anything that discomposes or injuriously affects the senses or the nerves. 16
17. INJUNCTION ◍ Injunction ◍ 1) Although an interim or interlocutory mandatory injunction is never granted before trial, there is no reason why interlocutory and indeed interim mandatory injunctions should not issue in proper and appropriate cases ◍ 2) The rise of need for equitable intervention (injunction) that there is no other adequate remedy at law — The Principles of Equitable Remedies ◍ 3) The principles relating to the granting of an interlocutory injunction namely that there must be a serious issue to be tried, that the balance of convenience and justice of the case in so ordering the injunction is in the plaintiff’s favor 17
18. ◍ - The court had considered the degree and result of the nuisance, most likely it could have been controlled or reduced. ◍ - One obvious fact was that the defendant had operated without a license or permit and had caused nuisance to the plaintiff whereby if it were not restrained by an injunction it would leave the plaintiff without any remedy. 18
19. ◍ The damages could not compensate for their mental agony and anguish as pending the trial which would take a long time. ◍ - The court ordered that the defendant be restrained by an injunction from causing nuisance to the plaintiff until the disposal of the trial of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. 19