Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd

Two individuals, Noel Uren and John Zakula, brought a nuisance claim against Bald Hills Wind Farm PTY LTD ("Wind Farm") seeking remedies, primarily an injunction. On March 25, 2022, Justice Richards of the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the claim, granting sums of $92,000 and $168,000 for each plaintiff and restraining the Wind Farm from continuing the nuisance. The nuisance claim was based on the noise created by the wind turbines. Since the Wind Farm first started operation in 2015, the Wind Farm has consistently received noise complaints from neighbors, including Mr. Uren and Mr. Zakula. However, the Wind Farm took no remedial action for the defendants, based on their investigation, which showed a noise level below the permit. While many individuals have also requested the local council to solve the nuisance in 2016, this only resulted in private settlements after the Council acknowledged the existence of only intermittent nuisance. This case was brought in 2017 by ten individuals, after the ownership and management of the Wind Farm changed. Eight of the individuals resolved their claims before the trial. The Court, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the noise from the wind turbines caused a substantial interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land during the nighttime, based on the inability to sleep in their own houses. The court also found that, although not dispositive, the Wind Farm failed to establish that the noise levels at the plaintiffs' homes were below what the permit granted. In reaching this conclusion, the court explained that while wind farms can be beneficial to the environment, that "there is not a binary choice to be made between the generation of clean energy by the wind farm, and a good night’s sleep for its neighbours. It should be possible to achieve both." As some possible precautions to reduce the noise levels, the court pointed out that the defendant could have implemented selective noise optimisation of nearby turbines or remedied the identified gearbox tonality issue. Based on the finding of nuisance, the court granted the primary remedy sought, an injunction. The terms specified that the injunction will be stayed for three months. Additionally, while damages based on alleged decline in value of the property were not granted, damages based on past loss of distress, inconvenience, and annoyance, and aggravated damages were granted.