Prior to the regulations on electronic music equipment, which were introduced in 1990's the present music equipment was very sensitive to electro-magnetic interference. After 1990's it has to comply with specific standards that make it more immune to this sort of interference, that the problem experienced by Mr Morris would not be encountered with guitars produced according to these regulations.
The interference is due to the sensitiveness of the recording equipment the foreseeing of nuisance by the Railways does not arise. It would arise if the interference were caused because of the sensitivity of the TI 21. "Railtrack could not reasonably have foreseen that these track circuits could have caused problems of electromagnetic interference at a distance of 60 to 70 meters."
The court believed that playing the guitar with sensitive electric and electronic music instrument such as an amplifier is not an abnormal but an ordinary enjoyment of property, it is feature of modern life and it is material for many younger generation's pleasure and also a vital part of the modern music generation.
The trial court believed the fact that electromagnetic interference was caused not only to the complaint alone but it caused to other users of such instrument also well before the track circuit was installed within that vicinity. And therefore concluded the second issue that nuisance of electromagnetic interference to the complainant was foreseeable.
(Graham Sinclair (2005), Neighbors and the Law (Chapter 5.10)
Findings of the Court of Appeal
The court of appeal recognized the issue as a sensitive and since there is no settled law adjudicating the electromagnetic interference as nuisance. Therefore the court has elaborately discussed the issues taking the settled law nearest to issues in this case. The court has made the following findings:
The court of appeal felt that only interference to the comforts of standard average man is actionable. Interference to abnormal and sensitive enjoyments of his property does not come within the ambit of the actionable nuisance. In this regard the court also felt that no