[EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Event][EasyDNNnews:EventDate][EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event][EasyDNNnews:IfNotExists:Event]17 October[EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event] [EasyDNNnews:Categories separator=" " last] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Comments] [EasyDNNnews:Comments] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Comments] Patricia Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC) [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Tags] [EasyDNNnews:Tags separator=", "] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Tags] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:Event] [EasyDNNnews:IfExists:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:EventLocation] [EasyDNNnews:EventDate] [EasyDNNnews:EndIf:Event] The Claimants alleged that dust, noise and odour emitted by the defendant’s factory over a prolonged period constituted a legal nuisance. The judge was critical of the Claimants’ experts for departing from the initial common approach when the initial results had been adverse to their clients’ case.