An interim injunction had previously been issued restraining and prohibiting the respondents from continuing with development and clearing works, constructions, felling of trees etc. on the property of the applicant. There had been proof that serious and/or unlawful environmental damage could be afoot. The Ministry of Environment, which contended that the necessary permits, licences and authorizations had been issued, was a co-respondent in the case.

Two main questions were identified: first whether the applicant had a right to view, and second whether the respondent was acting illegally in the circumstances without compliance with the Environment Protection Act, the creation of a nuisance and the opening of a side road in from of the applicant’s property.

Regarding the right to view, the applicant had always enjoyed a direct view of the ocean. The Court responded that a right to view could never be seen as a right to deny a neighbour to raise any construction on his property.

The Court lastly concluded that the respondent had fulfilled their obligations and that the application should be set aside, as an EIA was not mandatory as per the law applicable.