|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions >> Petursson & Anor v Hutchison 3g UK Ltd.  EWHC 920 (TCC) (09 May 2005)
Cite as:  EWHC 920 (TCC),  JPL 554
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
BIRMINGHAM CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
33 BULL STREET
BIRMINGHAM B4 6DS
Date of draft judgment: 4 April 2005
Date Of Judgment: 9 May 2005
B e f o r e :
| (1) EIRIKUR MAR PETURSSON
(2) AGNES INGVARSDOTTIR
|HUTCHISON 3G UK LIMITED
Mr R W Humphreys of Counsel (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Defendant
BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE FRANCES KIRKHAM
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
"17(2) At any time before the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the completion of the installation of the apparatus a person who is the occupier of or owns an interest in
(b) any land the enjoyment of which, or any interest in which, is, because of the nearness of the land to the land on or over which the apparatus has been installed, capable of being prejudiced by the apparatus, may give the operator notice of objection in respect of that apparatus."
"17(5) ...the person who gave the notice may apply to the court to have the objection upheld".
"17(6) Subject to sub-paragraph 7 below, the court shall uphold the objection if the apparatus appears materially to prejudice the applicant's enjoyment of, or interest in, the land in right of which the objection is made and the court is not satisfied that the only possible alterations of the apparatus will:
(a) substantially increase the cost or diminish the quality of the service provided by the operator's network to persons who have or, may in future have, access to it or
(b) involve the operator in substantial additional expenditure (disregarding any expenditure occasioned solely by the fact that any proposed alteration was not adopted originally or as the case may be that the apparatus was unnecessarily installed) or
(c) give to any person a case at least as good as the applicant has to have an objection under this paragraph upheld."
(The provisions of paragraph 17(7) are not relevant here.)
"17(9) If it upholds an objection under this paragraph the court may, by order:
(a) "direct the alteration of the apparatus..."
(b) authorise the installation (instead of the apparatus to which the objection relates) in a manner and position specified in the order, of any apparatus so specified
(c) "direct that no objection may be made under this paragraph in respect of any apparatus the installation of which is authorised by the court".
|"20 June 2003||The mast has gone up and we'll see what happens|
|25 June 2003||Adda headache
Niels not in the office.
|30 June 2003||Adda: headache
It's peculiar that we are feeling ill. I don't think the equipment has started but may be there are test runs.
|1 July 2
Peter Yates [of Worcester City Council] sends an email that tells that the transmitter is not active. That is expected late July!
|30 July 2003||I think there is periodic service or test runs on the mast. The electrics appear to be finalised but nobody wants to inform about anything.|
|7 August 2003||Adda has continuous headache, gets sick and vomits. They are working on the transmitter. Either it has started or it is just about to.
Eirik feels dizzy and has a pressure on his head.
The transmitter must have started.
Niels is on vacation.
|8 August 2003||Adda has a headache.
"Approx 10.00 o'clock I measured there was no result. I observed there was a technician working in the control panel, which was why it was disconnected.
Approx 1100 -1130 hrs Agnes felt that the antennas got connected again.
She sat in front of her computer.
Agnes describes it like a pressure on the temple along with some confusion.
I checked, the beam is back, and the technician has left.
It is certain that the antennas is operational!
There is no visible announcement in a public place..."
"Control measurement 2.5 V/m
Adda has a small headache and nausea
Erik has pressure in his head
Niels has got an upset stomach
The mast was cut off at 1050 approx
I did not get any measurement on the upper floor, no reaction
Mast was put back on 1120 approx
Measurement appeared to be back at the usual 2.5 V/m
We did not have time to register a difference in the head, it was too short a duration."
Have the claimants demonstrated that the defendant's apparatus appears materially to have prejudiced their enjoyment of 57 London Road?
The Expert Evidence
ICNIRP 1998: Guidelines on limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) May 2000 (the Stewart report, referred to as Stewart 1).
COST (European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical research): paper November 2001
National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)'s Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR): report Vol 14 No 2 2003 "Health Effects from RF Electromagnetic Fields."
Mobile Phone & Health 2004: Report by the Board of the NRPB Vol 15 No. 5 2004.
Santini: Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations, published by Santini et al, 2003
TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory: Effects of Global Communication system RF fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints, September 2003
Navarro: The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain, 2003