邻居车挡住家门口, 赔偿+禁令[2017]

案件背景

1. 这个案件讲的是槟城一宗很典型、也很贴近大众生活的邻居乱停车纠纷。原告是一对夫妻，他们起诉住在附近的邻居，因为被告长期把车停在他们家门口附近、黄线位置和路口转角，导致他们每天进出家门都非常困难，也担心随时会发生车祸。
2. 原告住在一排三层排屋里面，被告住在距离他们两间屋子外的单位。屋前的道路是双向小路，而被告的屋子刚好面对一个T字路口。原告的说法是，每一间屋子本身都有停车位，可以停放车辆，所以被告根本没有必要长期把车停在外面阻挡别人。
3. 原告向法庭提出的主要诉求是，被告经常把车停在他们家门前、门口附近或屋子对面，造成他们车辆进出困难；被告的车也挡住他们看见来车的视线；这种情况反复发生，已经不是一次两次的小误会，而是持续性的滋扰。因此，原告要求法庭发出禁令、判赔偿和堂费。
4. 第一原告说，问题大概从2014年4月开始。当时他还没有正式搬进去，有一天到屋子查看时，发现有车直接停在他家大门前，导致他无法把车驾进去。他当时不知道车主是谁，只好留下字条，要求对方不要把车停在他家门口。后来他才知道，那辆车就是被告的。
5. 原告正式搬进去后，发现被告还是经常把车停在路口转角、另一间屋子前面，以及原告家门口附近。第一原告说，每次他要倒车出门，都必须慢慢倒车、前进后退几次，才可以避开被告的车。如果要驾车回家，他也因为视线被挡，看不到来车，感觉非常危险。
6. 第二原告是一名医生。她的投诉更加实际，因为她有时会因为医院紧急情况而需要赶去医院。如果家门口被车阻挡，她就很难迅速把车驾出去。她说，这种情况不只是普通不方便，而是会影响她处理紧急工作的速度，也让她长期处在压力之中。
7. 原告的主要说法。 原告的重点是，这不是普通邻居之间的一点小摩擦，而是持续性的私人滋扰。原告认为，被告的车长期停在不应该停的位置，包括黄线、路口附近和原告家门口附近，不但阻挡出入，也制造盲点和危险，导致原告长期承受精神压力。
8. 原告也依赖CCTV录像、照片、报案纸和证人供词来证明案情。第一原告曾经多次报警，其中包括被告阻挡他出入、被告对他大声责骂、甚至挑战他打架等情况。原告也曾经通过律师发出律师信，要求被告停止这种停车方式，但被告并没有配合。
9. 原告引用《1959年道路交通规则》来支持自己的立场。第8A条规定，车辆不可以停在黄线位置；第12(1)条则规定，车辆不可以停在距离路口或转角30尺以内的地方。因此，原告说，被告把车停在黄线和路口附近，本身已经是违法停车。
10. 关于私人滋扰的法律原则，法庭参考了 Ong Koh Hou v Perbadanan Bandar & Anor [2009] 8 MLJ 616 和 Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142。这些案例说明，如果一个人的行为不合理地干扰别人使用和享受自己的土地，就可能构成私人滋扰。
11. 原告也引用其他案例说明，法庭可以用禁令制止持续滋扰。例如，在 Sanders-clark v Grosvenor Mansions Company, Limited and G D’Allessandri [1900] 2 Ch 373，楼下餐厅的热气和臭味影响楼上住户，法庭发出禁令。在 Palmer v Loder [1962] CLY 2233，长期大喊、敲打、制造噪音，也被法庭用禁令制止。

被告的抗辩。

12. 被告否认自己造成任何阻挡或不方便。他说，他和第一原告之间曾经有一个口头协议，第一原告同意让他把车停在原告屋子对面。他也否认自己曾经把车直接停在原告家门前，并否认自己的停车方式构成私人滋扰。
13. 被告的核心抗辩是，原告必须证明真正的阻挡，而不是单纯觉得不爽或不方便。他依赖 Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’villa Equestrian [2015] 4 MLJ 204，主张不是每一种生活上的不方便都可以变成可以起诉的滋扰。邻里社会本来就需要互相迁就。
14. 被告也引用 Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142，强调私人滋扰必须是不合理地干扰别人使用和享受土地。他的说法是，CCTV录像并没有证明他的停车真正阻挡原告到构成法律责任的程度。
15. 法庭怎么看证据。 法庭不接受被告所谓的口头协议，因为被告没有提出任何证据证明这个协议存在。法庭也认为，被告否认曾经把车停在原告屋前时，并没有说真话。相反，法庭接受第一原告的证供，认为被告至少有两次把车停在原告家门前，阻挡原告进入屋子。
16. 法庭从照片和CCTV录像中看到，被告经常把车停在路口转角和原告屋子对面。法庭认为，这种停车方式是违法的，因为车辆停在黄线和靠近路口的位置，而这些行为都受到《1959年道路交通规则》禁止。
17. 法庭也注意到，原告屋前道路的车流量不少，而道路宽度只足够两辆车通过。被告把车停在路边后，占用了超过半条车道。这样一来，从另一条路转进来的车辆可能必须驶入对面车道，形成危险的盲点，也增加车祸风险。
18. 法庭认为，被告引用的 Au Kean Hoe 案件不能帮助他。那个案件涉及保安亭和栏杆，而且是为了住宅区保安和管理而设，目的合法也正当。可是本案不同，本案涉及的是违法停车、阻挡别人出入、靠近路口制造危险，而且被告自己家里明明有停车位，却选择不用。

为什么法庭发禁令

19. 法庭参考英国法律原则后指出，如果滋扰只是轻微、暂时，或者可以用金钱轻易赔偿，法庭未必会发禁令。可是，如果滋扰是持续发生、重复发生，或者被告坚持继续做同样的事情，禁令就可能是适合的补救方式。
20. 本案中，被告的态度成为关键因素。两名原告都说被告很凶、很难沟通。法官也亲自观察到，被告在庭上回答问题时态度强硬、提高声量、反问律师、与律师争辩，甚至需要法庭提醒他只需要回答问题。法庭因此认为，如果没有禁令，被告很可能会继续停车在争议位置。

赔偿和最终判决

21. 原告索赔的是身体不舒服和精神压力。法庭参考 Bone and another v Seale [1975] 1 All ER 787; [1975] 1 WLR 797，以及 IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd [2007] 8 MLJ 591，接受滋扰造成的烦扰、压力和生活享受受影响，可以构成法律上的损害。
22. 法庭采用普通合理人的标准来判断。一个普通人长期面对家门口被挡、视线被遮、担心发生车祸、又害怕被对方打，会不会感到压力？法庭的答案是会。因此，法庭判原告胜诉，发出禁令制止被告继续相关停车行为，并判给原告RM5,000象征性赔偿及RM5,000堂费。
23. 这个案件给屋主的提醒。 如果遇到邻居长期乱停车，屋主不要只是在WhatsApp群组或Facebook发泄，也不要直接冲突。最重要的是保留证据，包括CCTV、照片、报案纸、投诉记录、律师信、日期时间表和证人证供。证据越完整，案件越有力量。
24. 这个案件给乱停车者的警告。 公共道路不是私人停车场，黄线不是装饰，路口也不是可以随便霸占的位置。如果一个人长期违法停车，阻挡邻居进出，制造危险和压力，即使没有真正发生车祸，也可能被法庭判定为私人滋扰，最后面对禁令、赔偿和堂费。

Introduction

1. This case concerns a neighbourhood private nuisance dispute in Penang, where the plaintiffs, a married couple, sued their nearby neighbour for repeatedly parking his vehicle near or in front of their house gate, allegedly blocking access, creating road danger, and causing physical discomfort and mental stress. This bilingual version is based strictly on the uploaded judgment.
2. The plaintiffs lived in a three-storey terrace house. The defendant lived two doors away. The road in front of the houses was a two-way side road, and the defendant’s house faced a T-junction. The plaintiffs said each house had its own parking space which could accommodate vehicles.
3. The plaintiffs’ claims were that the defendant’s vehicle was often parked in front of, near, or opposite their gate; that this made it difficult for them to drive in and out; that the parking blocked their view of oncoming vehicles; that the conduct was repeated despite objections; and that they were entitled to an injunction, damages, and costs. No counter-claim by the defendant was identified in this case.
4. The first plaintiff said the problem started around April 2014, even before he moved in. He found a vehicle parked directly in front of his gate and left a note asking the owner not to park there. The vehicle belonged to the defendant. After moving in, the first plaintiff noticed the defendant frequently parked near the corner, in front of another house, and in front of or near the plaintiffs’ house.
5. The plaintiffs relied on CCTV recordings, photographs, police reports, and their own testimony. The first plaintiff said he had to reverse slowly, move forward several times, and be extra careful to avoid colliding with the defendant’s vehicle. The second plaintiff, a medical doctor, said the obstruction was especially serious when she had to attend emergency calls at the hospital.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

6. The plaintiffs argued that this was not a small parking irritation but a continuing private nuisance. Their argument points were that the parking was repeated; it was near a junction; it was on a yellow line; it obstructed their access; it created a blind spot; it caused real fear of accident; it caused mental pressure; and the defendant acted aggressively when confronted.
7. The plaintiffs also relied on the Road Traffic Rules 1959. Rule 8A prohibits a vehicle from remaining on a yellow line, while rule 12(1) prohibits a vehicle from remaining stationary within 30 feet of a road junction or corner. They said the defendant’s parking was therefore illegal and unreasonable.
8. The legal principle on private nuisance was drawn from Ong Koh Hou v Perbadanan Bandar & Anor [2009] 8 MLJ 616 and Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142. Private nuisance means unlawful interference with an owner or occupier’s reasonable enjoyment of land, including interference causing discomfort or inconvenience beyond what an ordinary person should tolerate.
9. The plaintiffs further relied on authorities showing that injunctions may be granted to stop continuing nuisance. In Sanders-clark v Grosvenor Mansions Company, Limited and G D’Allessandri [1900] 2 Ch 373, an injunction was granted where heat and smell from a restaurant affected residential enjoyment. In Palmer v Loder [1962] CLY 2233, an injunction restrained repeated noisy behaviour disturbing a flat owner.

Defendant’s Defence

10. The defendant denied that he had caused obstruction or inconvenience. He said he had an oral agreement with the first plaintiff allowing him to park opposite the plaintiffs’ house. He also denied parking directly in front of the plaintiffs’ house and denied that his parking near the disputed location amounted to nuisance.
11. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs must prove real obstruction, not mere annoyance. He relied heavily on Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’villa Equestrian [2015] 4 MLJ 204, where the Federal Court held that not every inconvenience becomes actionable nuisance. The law requires a balance between individual inconvenience and community living.
12. The defendant also referred to Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142, which stated that nuisance involves undue interference with the use or enjoyment of land. His position was that the CCTV did not prove such interference.
13. However, the court rejected the defendant’s alleged oral agreement because there was no evidence to support it. The court also found that the defendant was not telling the truth when he denied parking in front of the plaintiffs’ house. The first plaintiff’s evidence was accepted.

Court’s Analysis

14. From the CCTV recordings and photographs, the court found that the defendant often parked at the corner and opposite the plaintiffs’ house. The parking was illegal because it was on a yellow line and near a corner, both prohibited under the Road Traffic Rules 1959.
15. The court observed that traffic along the road was heavy, and the road was only wide enough for two vehicles to pass. With the defendant’s vehicle parked by the roadside, more than half of one lane was taken up. Vehicles coming from the other road had to move into the opposite lane, creating a dangerous blind spot.
16. The court held that Au Kean Hoe did not assist the defendant. That case involved a guard house and boom gates erected for a legitimate purpose, whereas this case involved illegal parking and unreasonable conduct. The defendant had his own parking space but chose not to use it.

Injunction

17. The court considered the principles in Halsbury’s Laws of England. An injunction is usually not granted for trivial, temporary, or easily compensable injury. However, an injunction may be granted where nuisance is continuing or recurring, where the injury is substantial, or where the defendant insists on continuing the conduct.
18. The defendant’s behaviour was a major factor. Both plaintiffs said he was aggressive and difficult to approach. The judge also observed that the defendant behaved aggressively in court, raised his voice, argued with counsel, and had to be reminded to answer questions properly.
19. The court found reasonable grounds to believe the defendant would continue parking at the disputed spots unless restrained by injunction. It was also not in the public interest for the court to tolerate parking on yellow lines and too close to a road junction.

Damages

20. The plaintiffs claimed physical and mental distress. The court considered Bone and another v Seale [1975] 1 All ER 787; [1975] 1 WLR 797, where damages were awarded for loss of enjoyment caused by smell from a pig farm. The court also considered IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd [2007] 8 MLJ 591, which accepted annoyance and harassment as sufficient damage in nuisance.
21. Applying the reasonable person test, the court held that fear of being beaten up and fear of a possible accident were real. Together with continuous obstruction and inconvenience, this amounted to sufficient damage. The court awarded nominal damages of RM5,000 and entered judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs of RM5,000 as reported.

Practical Lessons

22. For homeowners, the lesson is to collect CCTV footage, photographs, police reports, authority complaints, and demand letters before suing. For defendants, the lesson is simple: a public road is not personal property. Repeated illegal parking, especially near a gate, yellow line, or junction, can become private nuisance and justify an injunction.

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. They stay at house No 8. The defendant stays at house No 12, two doors away from the plaintiffs’ house. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant had always parked his vehicle in front or near the front of the gate of the plaintiffs’ house, causing obstruction and inconvenience for them to exit and enter their vehicles into their house. They also alleged that the defendant’s act of continuously parking his vehicle near the plaintiffs’ house despite being told not to park there had caused physical and mental distress to them. They sued the defendant for nuisance, seeking an injunction and damages.
2. In the defendant’s defence, the defendant claims he has entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiffs, wherein the first plaintiff is said to have agreed to allow him to park his vehicle opposite the plaintiffs’ house. This defence was found to be untrue because there was no evidence adduced to prove it. He denied he had parked his vehicle right in front of the plaintiffs’ house. He also denied he had caused obstruction and inconvenience to the plaintiffs. The issue arose is whether the defendant had committed an act of nuisance against the plaintiffs.

THE EVIDENCE

3. Both plaintiffs and the defendant gave evidence. The first plaintiff (‘PW1’) testify as follows. He said house Nos 8 and 12 is a three storey terrace house in a row of 20 units. The road in front of their houses, Lorong SK3 is a side road with a two way traffic lane. The defendant’s house is facing a t-junction between Lorong SK1and Lorong SK3.
4. According to PW1, each house had a parking lot that can accommodate three vehicles. He and his wife never parked their vehicles outside their house. His first encounter with the parking problem happens sometimes in April 2014, before he moves into his house. On that day, he came to see his house and found a vehicle was parked right in front of the gate of his house. Because of that, he cannot enter his vehicle into his house. Not knowing whose vehicle it was, he left a note to the owner not to park his vehicle in front of his house. The owner of the said vehicle is the defendant. After he moved into the house in 2014, he noticed the defendant always parked his vehicle near a corner of the junction, in front of house No 10 and in front of the plaintiffs’ house. When asked to explain what was the obstruction he faced with the defendant’s parking, PW1 said the defendant’s vehicle which is parked in front or near the front of his house gives him a hard time to get in and out of his house. He had to reverse his vehicle slowly to avoid colliding into the defendant’s vehicle and move forward a few times to negotiate out of his house. If he wants to enter his house, his line of sight of incoming vehicles is obstructed by the defendant’s parked vehicle.
5. When the defendant parked his vehicle near a corner, he cannot see vehicles coming from Lorong SK1 and they also cannot see his vehicle when he exit or enter his house. He said these obstructions can caused accident. Everytime there is obstruction, PW1 will approach the defendant, asking him to remove his vehicle and to park his vehicle in his house compound. At first, the defendant accede to PW1’s request. But, one or two weeks later, the defendant continue parking in front of the plaintiffs’ house. This time, when PW1 approached the defendant, the defendant was aggressive and asked for a fight. After that, PW1 said he did not dare to talk to the defendant. To avoid confrontation, PW1 decided to seek help from the police. So, on 6 November 2014, when the defendant parked his vehicle in front of the plaintiffs’ house obstructing him to exit and enter his house, he lodged a police report. The police came and issued a parking summons to the defendant. On 12 November 2014 at about 8am when PW1 was in front of his house, the defendant shouted at him saying he was not happy with PW1 complaining to the police and that he will continue to park his vehicle anywhere he likes and that there is nothing PW1 can do. To protect his family, PW1 lodged a police report. On 18 November 2014, at about 10.45pm, the defendant’s vehicle obstructed PW1’s vehicle from entering his house. PW1 called the police. The police came. The defendant scolded PW1 and challenge him to a fight in front of the police. Police warned the defendant to remove his vehicle which he did. The next day, PW1 lodged a police report for fear of his safety. To stop the defendant from parking his vehicle in front of his house, PW1 took the following steps:

(a) he attached a police box to the front gate of his house;

(b) he gets the JKR to paint a yellow edge line in front of his house; and

(c) he put a rubbish bin opposite his house.

6. But the defendant never change. He continues parking his vehicle along Lorong SK3. Normally, his parking will be from 8pm till 8am in the morning or all day long. To prove the defendant’s obstruction, PW1 has produced photographs (‘P17’) and CCTV recording (‘P19’). In fact, when PW1 return from work on at about 10pm, he found the rubbish bin was knocked over by the defendant. On this issue, the defendant claimed he was not aware that he had knocked down the rubbish bin. However, the CCTV recording showed not only the defendant was aware he had knocked down the rubbish bin, but also he was not bothered to pick up the bin. Unable to tolerate the defendant’s behaviour, PW1 appointed a lawyer from the legal firm of Messrs George Shek & PH Teh to issue a letter of demand dated 14 September 2015 to the defendant, demanding that the defendant restraint from parking his vehicle in front or near the plaintiffs’ house. There was no reply from the defendant. Instead, at about 7.55am, while driving his vehicle with his wife inside, PW1 saw the defendant’s vehicle approaching. He stayed in the left lane, allowing the defendant’s vehicle to pass. The defendant, upon passing PWTs vehicle, suddenly, without any indicator, swerved his vehicle two times in front of PWT’s vehicle, which PW1 found intimidating. He lodged a police report because he suspects the defendant was angry after being issued with lawyer’s demand letter. The defendant had contended that the numerous police reports lodged by PW1 contained false statements. But, he himself never lodged a single police report to rebut or deny the plaintiffs’ allegation. PW1’s testimony was supported in material facts by the second plaintiff (‘PW2’). PW2 is a medical doctor attached to Penang General Hospital. Primarily, her complaint is the defendant’s act of parking his vehicle in front or near the front of her house had caused obstruction and inconvenience for her whenever she was requested to attend to the hospital for an emergency. Like PW1, she says she finds it hard to reverse her vehicle out of her house, and it takes a while to do so. She also finds it hard to enter her vehicle into the parking lot of her house upon returning from the hospital. She supports her husband’s decision to take this matter to court as the defendant was aggressive.
7. The defendant’s version is as follows. He denied he had parked his vehicle near a junction. He also denied the parking of his vehicle in front of the plaintiffs’ house had caused obstruction and inconvenience to the plaintiffs. He further denied that he could not park his vehicle on a yellow line. He agrees he can park two vehicles in the car parking lot of his house. But chose not to do so because he said it is challenging to park two vehicles as well as it will cramp his house. But, a photograph shows he had parked two vehicles in his house compound.

NUISANCE

8. Private nuisance is an unlawful interference and/or annoyance which cause damages to an occupier or owner of land in respect of his enjoyment of the land; see Ong Koh Hou v Perbadanan Bandar & Anor [2009] 8 MLJ 616; Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142. Nuisance may be with respect to property or personal physical discomfort. The discomfort should be such as an ordinary or average person in the locality and environment would not put up or tolerate. In Sanders-clark v Grosvenor Mansions Company, Limited and G D’Allessandri [1900] 2 Ch 373, an injunction was granted to prevent a person from turning a floor underneath a residential fiat into a restaurant and thereby causing a nuisance by heat and smell to the occupier of the flat. In Palmer v Loder [1962] CLY 2233, a perpetual injunction was granted to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of her flat by shouting, banging, laughing, ringing doorbells or otherwise behaving so as to cause a nuisance by noise. Whether nuisance is committed or not is a question of facts to be decided based on the circumstances of each case.
9. The defendant submits the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case of nuisance. It is submitted that the plaintiffs’ claim should only be allowed if the plaintiffs can prove that the defendant, by parking his vehicle, had disturbed and obstructed the plaintiffs from entering or exiting their vehicles from their house. To support his argument, the defendant cited the case of Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’villa Equestrian [2015] 4 MLJ 204. In that case, the appellant and his wife owned a house in the D’Villa Equestrian estate. When they bought the property, there were already two boom gates and a guard house in operation on the road, which served as the sole entrance to and exit from the housing estate. The respondent was the residents’ association of the housing estate and it decided that those residents who did not pay the monthly fee for security and maintenance charges would have to open the boom gates themselves without the assistance of the security guard on duty. The appellant, who stopped paying the security and maintenance charges after having previously done so, objected to the respondent’s decision and sued the respondent for nuisance in creating an obstruction on a public road. The respondent counterclaimed for arrears of maintenance and security charges and an injunction to restrain him from harassing the committee members of the respondent and the security guards at the guard house. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim and the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision.
10. In dismissing the appeal, the Federal Court held:

“[25] At common law, both actionable obstruction or actionable private nuisance is not available for inconvenience. The decided cases have shown that it is a matter of degree at all times and the conduct has to be unreasonable conduct in the circumstances of the case for it to be actionable. In Trevett v Lee [1955] 1 WLR 113, Lord Evershed observed that the question whether a householder is or is not obstructing the highway so as to give rise to cause of action is to be judged by balancing on standards of reasonableness, the claims and the conduct of the householder on the one side and the members of the public on the other. Lord Evershed adopted the rule propounded by Romer J in Christchurch Corp [1912] 3 KB 595 as follows:

The law relating to the user of highways is in truth the law of give and take. Those who use them must in doing so have reasonable regard to the convenience and comfort of others, and must not themselves expect a degree of convenience and comfort only obtainable by disregarding that of other people. They must expect to be obstructed occasionally. It is the price they pay for the privilege of obstructing others.

[26] We are of the view the underlying rule is a recognition that individuals live within a community and it is always the balancing of the individuals’ inconvenience against the communities’ interest that is of paramount concern. On this point in George Philip & Ors v Subbamal & Ors AIR 1957 Tra-Co 281, the High Court in India observed as follows:

Every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought on to the category of actionable nuisance. Consistent with the circumstances under which a person is living, he may have to put up with a certain amount of inevitable annoyance or inconvenience. But, if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits, then the same would amount to actionable nuisance. The question as to what would be a reasonable limit in a given case will have to be determined on a consideration as to whether there has been a material interference with the ordinary comfort and convenience of life under normal circumstances.

[27] It is our judgment that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had correctly concluded that the appellant’s inconvenience was not an actionable nuisance by the presence of the guard house and the boom gates.”

11. The defendant relied heavily on the judgment of the Federal Court in Au Kean Hoe. The defendant also refers this court to the case of Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 142, wherein the court held:

The essence of nuisance is a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use or enjoyment of land … Nuisance is an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance of or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyment of (a) a right belonging to him as a member of the public, when it is a public nuisance, or (b) his ownership or occupation of land or of some easement, profit, or other right used or enjoyed in connection with land, when it is a private nuisance. The acts which constitute pubiic nuisance are all of them unlawful acts. In private nuisance, on the other hand, the acts constituting the nuisance are not necessarily or usually unlawful. A private nuisance may be and usually is caused by a person doing on his own land something which he is lawfully entitled to do. His conduct only becomes a nuisance when the consequences of his acts are not confined to his own land but extend to the land of his neighbour by (1) causing an encroachment on his neighbour’s land, when it closely resembles trespass; (2) causing physical damage to his neighbour’s land or buildings or works or vegetation upon it; or (3) unduly interfering with his neighbour in the comfortable and convenient enjoyment of his land.

12. It was further submitted that the CCTV recordings played in court clearly show the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the parking of the defendant’s vehicle is a nuisance.
13. In response, the plaintiffs submit, the photographs and CCTV clearly show the defendant had parked his vehicle too near a corner and in front of the plaintiffs’ house. The road in front of the plaintiffs’ house has been painted with yellow line. Rule 8A of the Road Traffic Rules 1959 states no person shall cause any vehicle to remain over yellow line. Based on r 8A, the plaintiffs submit the defendant cannot parked his vehicle on the yellow line and that his parking is illegal. It is also submitted that the defendant’s parking near a corner of a road junction is against Rule 12(1) of the Road Traffic Rules 1959 which states no person shall allow any vehicle to remain stationary within 30 ft of a road junction or corner. Hence, the plaintiffs submit, the defendant’s parking at a corner of a junction is illegal.

COURT’S FINDINGS

14. Although the defendant had denied he had parked his vehicle in front of the plaintiffs’ house, I find the defendant was not telling the truth. I accept PW1’s testimony that at least twice, the defendant had parked right in front of the plaintiffs’ house, preventing him from entering his house. From the photographs and CCTV recording, it is obvious to me that the defendant always parked at a corner and opposite the plaintiffs’ house. The parking at those places is illegal because it is parked on a yellow line and near a corner, an act prohibited under the Road Traffic Rules 1959. From the CCTV recording, I noticed that the flow of traffics along Lorong SK3 is heavy. The width of Lorong SK3 only allow two vehicle to pass. With the defendant’s vehicle parked by the roadside, it has taken the space of more than half of one lane, that is the lane of vehicle coming from Lorong SK1. This will cause vehicle coming from Lorong SK1 to enter into the opposite lane. At the same time, they cannot see oncoming vehicles from Lorong SK3. If they are not careful, accident can occur. For the same reason, the space for the plaintiffs to reverse their vehicles when exiting from their house became narrow. Not only the plaintiffs had a hard time to get out, they also had to worry about vehicles coming from Lorong SK1 who cannot see the plaintiffs’ vehicles exiting or entering. Judicial notice can be taken that normally vehicles taking a corner do not move slowly. The corner is a blind spot. Taking into account all these factors, it could not be disputed that the defendant’s parking had created a dangerous situation. The defendant had contended that so far, there has been no accident. Surely, this cannot be the right attitude. Judging from the defendant’s behaviour, I doubted the defendant would parked his vehicle elsewhere even after an accident had occurred, it is my considered view that the principle that road users must practiced give and take, as mentioned by the Federal Court in Au Kean Hoe’s case does not apply in this case because the defendant’s house has a parking lot that can accommodate three vehicles. This fact is not disputed. Parking lot is meant to park vehicle. Before this case, he had parked two vehicles in his house compound. But, now, he refused to park his second vehicle inside his house compound. He only parked one car in his house compound. He purposely parked his vehicle in front of the plaintiffs’ house to cause annoyance and intimidate the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs had sought assistance from the police and various local authorities. This case would not be necessary if the defendant had parked his vehicle in his house compound. I find the defendant’s conduct of parking his vehicle by the roadside instead of in his house compound, which is a safer place, is most unreasonable. For the illegal parking and the obstructions caused to the plaintiffs, I hold the defendant has committed a tort of private nuisance against the plaintiffs.

INJUNCTION

15. The plaintiffs are seeking, inter alia, an injunction to stop the defendant from parking his vehicle near or in front of the gate of the plaintiffs’ house and where there is yellow line drawn on it. The question is whether an injunction should be granted to the plaintiffs. In Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol 34, it is stated that an injunction will not be granted if:

(1) the injury caused by the nuisance is trivial or not serious, is one which is capable of being estimated in money and can be adequately compensated by a small money payment, and

(2) the case is one which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction.

In such cases damages will be given in substitution for an injunction. An injunction will not be granted when the injury is of a temporary or occasional character. An injunction may be refused to a plaintiff who has suffered hardship if it is in the public interest to continue the nuisance. In such cases damages will be given in substitution for an injunction. An injunction will not be granted when the injury is of a temporary or occasional character. An injunction may be refused to a plaintiff who has suffered hardship if it is in the public interest to continue the nuisance.

16. But circumstances may arise that an injunction is an appropriate remedy. In Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol 34 at paras 386, it is stated:

… an injunction will be granted to restrain the continuance of a nuisance where the injury done by it is substantial, or where, however slight the damage may be, the nuisance is a continuing or recurring one, so that it would give rise to a series of actions if no injunction were granted, or where the defendant claims the right to continue the conduct complained of, or threatens to do so. The conduct of the defendant may be a material factor in deciding whether the violation of a right should be remedied by damages or prevented by an injunction.

… Where an injunction is sought, it is not sufficient merely to allege that the proposed act of the defendant will have an illegal result against the plaintiff without putting before the court sufficient material to enable it to judge that question for itself. Where some degree of present nuisance exists, the court will take into account its probable continuance and increase, and its presence and existence raise a presumption of its continuance. As between adjoining owners the court will consider whether the defendant is using his property reasonably or not.

17. From the above principles of law, it appears that the conduct of the defendant shall be the material factor in deciding whether to grant or not to grant an injunction. In the present case, both plaintiffs have testified that the defendant is aggressive and not approachable. I had the opportunity to observe the defendant’s demeanour in court. Indeed, the defendant is aggressive. The manner he answered questions when cross-examined by the plaintiffs’ solicitors is in stark contrast with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are soft spoken people. Not only he has raised his voice, he also had the tendency of asking back questions to the counsel and arguing with the counsel. He had to be reprimanded by the court that his duty is only to answer question. The defendant admitted as at the day of the trial on 30 August 2016, he still parked his vehicle at the spots objected by the plaintiffs. I have heard unchallenged evidence from PW1 of the defendant’s conduct in shouting at PW1 simply because PW1 had complained to the police; how the defendant had asked for a fight with PW1 right in front of the police; how the defendant threaten PW1 that he will continue parking anywhere he likes and that there is nothing anyone can do to stop him. Not even this court. Taking all these factors, I find the defendant is a trouble maker and he did what he did just to provoke and intimidate the plaintiffs. Any reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes will not continue parking his vehicle at the alleged spots after being told by the property owner not to park there. What more when the defendant can park his vehicle in the parking lot of his own house. The defendant himself has admitted that the parking lot of his house can accommodate two vehicles and that he can parked his vehicles in his own compound since he only bring home two vehicles. The problem would have end there and then. Peace. But, the defendant refused to accede to the plaintiffs’ request. The defendant only park one vehicle in the parking lot of his house, leaving ample empty space in his parking lot. The defendant’s conduct of purposely refusing to park his vehicle in the parking lot of his compound which is meant for parking with ample space to do so is so unreasonable and cannot be accepted by the court. In choosing to park his vehicle wherever he likes, despite being told not to do so, not only the defendant had acted like he was a king in the area, but also he has created a dangerous situation to other road users in the area. Accident can happen and may happen because his parking had obstructed the right of way and view of vehicles coming from Lorong SK1. Taking into account the defendant’s conduct and the fact that the illegal parking still continue, there is reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will not stop parking at the alleged spots unless he is restrained by an injunction. Further, the nuisance and hardship caused to the plaintiffs is not of a temporary nature. I agree with the plaintiffs that no amount of money can compensate the plaintiffs. Also, it is not in the public interest for this court to condone the parking of vehicle at yellow line and too near a road junction. This is a fit and proper case for the court to grant an injunction. I, therefore granted the injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs.

DAMAGES

18. The plaintiffs have pleaded as follows: ‘oleh kerana pengacauan defendan tersebut, plaintif pertama dan plaintif kedua telah mengalami kerugian dari segi kejejasan kesihatan mental dan fizikal’. The defendant submit there is no evidence from the plaintiffs that the defendant had caused them mental and physical stress by the parking of the defendant’s vehicle at the alleged location. As such, the defendant submit that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim. In Halsbury Laws of England Vol 34, on the subject matter of damages:

… the damages in an action for nuisance should be such as to compensate for whatever loss results to the plaintiff as a foreseeable consequence of the wrongful act … Where the nuisance has caused personal injuries or damage to chattels, damages for those are assessed in the ordinary way.

19. In contending the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on two cases:

(a) in Bone and another v Seale [1975] 1 All ER 787. This is a case where smells from a pig farm constituted a nuisance but did not diminish the value of the land and caused no ill health. Each plaintiff was awarded $1000 for the two years’ loss of amenity in the enjoyment of the property which he had already suffered; and

(b) IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd [2007] 8 MLJ 591. This is a case where the defendant had sent incessant letters to the plaintiff, demanding payment for the sum of RM2.84m and containing constant threats against the plaintiff causing annoyance was held to be sufficient proof of damage and ordered the defendant to pay damages (after assessment by the registrar) to the plaintiff. In coming to that decision, the court referred to the case of Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727 made by Dillon LJ in that case as follows: and quoted a statement Damage is, in in the relevant category, a necessary ingredient in the tort of private nuisance … So far as the harassing telephone calls are concerned, however, the inconvenience and annoyance to the occupier caused by such calls, and the interference thereby with the ordinary and reasonable use of the property are sufficient damage.

20. Both plaintiffs had said they feared the defendant. The test is one of a reasonable man. I agree with the plaintiffs that the court must ask itself the following questions. Would a reasonable man feel stressed by the conduct of the defendant in obstructing them continuously for the past two and a half years since April 2014? Would a reasonable man be worried when exiting or entering his house, knowing that an accident may happen at any time as the line of sight of the road is blocked by the defendant’s vehicle? Would a reasonable man feel agitated with the fear of being beaten up if he confronts the defendant? The answer to all these questions is yes. Fear of being beaten up by the defendant and fear of the possibility of getting involved in an accident is real. In my view, these fears, coupled with the continuous obstruction and inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs, constitute sufficient damage. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs have proved their pleaded case of damage. Since the damage suffered by the plaintiffs is physical discomfort and mental stress, I awarded a nominal damages of RM5000.

CONCLUSION

21. Based on the evidence before the court, the plaintiffs have proved their case on the balance of probabilities. I, allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim with RM5000 cost.

Source:  Lai Kong Loke & Anor v. Ting See Leng [2017] 7 MLJ 548. Penang High Court. Hadhariah Syed Ismail J.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #郭、汪律师事务所 #郭、汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #郭伟廷律师 #律师郭伟廷 #大状

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #商业诉讼律师

#专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #专打民事诉讼案 #专打民事纠纷案 #专打商业纠纷案

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #强悍的律师 #有效率的律师 #能干的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #KuekOngAssociates #lawyer Wilson Kuek #WilsonKuek #Kuek Wee Teng #KuekWeeTeng

#Klang Legal Firm #Klang Valley Legal Firm # Selangor Legal Firm #KL Legal Firm #Klang Law Firm #Klang Valley Law Firm # Selangor Law Firm #KL Law Firm

#Klang Lawyer #Klang Valley Lawyer #Selangor Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional Lawyer #Experienced Lawyer #Trustworthy Lawyer #Reliable Lawyer #Reputable Lawyer #Renowned Lawyer #Famous Lawyer #Skilled Lawyer #Credible Lawyer #Esteemed Lawyer #Notable Lawyer #Well-known Lawyer #Capable Lawyer #Effective Lawyer #Efficient Lawyer #Best Lawyer

#hard to park #difficult to park

#妨碍交通 #泊车 #停车 #停放车 #禁令 #禁制令 #禁止令 #温柔的证人 #斯文的证人 #文静的证人 #有礼貌的证人 #有礼的证人#精神伤害 #精神损失 #精神损伤

1.马来西亚邻居长期挡门停车，可以告上法庭吗？｜Can You Sue a Neighbor for Blocking Your Driveway in Malaysia?； 邻居把车停在我家门口违法吗？｜Is It Illegal for a Neighbor to Park in Front of My Gate?；3. 黄线停车又挡住家门，法院可以发禁令吗？｜Yellow-Line Parking and Driveway Obstruction: Can the Court Grant an Injunction?；4. 邻居乱停车构成私人滋扰吗？｜Can Illegal Neighbor Parking Amount to Private Nuisance?；5. 邻居停车害我进出困难，可以要求赔偿吗？｜Can You Claim Damages for a Neighbor’s Parking Obstruction?；6. 恶邻天天把车停在家门前，屋主有什么法律权利？｜What Are Your Legal Rights When a Neighbor Keeps Blocking Your Home?；7. CCTV拍到邻居长期堵门停车，法院怎么看？｜CCTV Catches Repeated Driveway Blocking: What Will the Court Do?；8. 自己家有停车位，却偏偏停在邻居门口，会犯法吗？｜Parking Outside a Neighbor’s Home Despite Having Your Own Parking Space；9. 路口30尺内停车违法吗？马来西亚停车法律解析｜Is Parking Within 30 Feet of a Junction Illegal in Malaysia?；10. 没有完全堵死家门，也可以构成私人滋扰吗？｜Can Parking Be Private Nuisance Even Without Completely Blocking the Gate?；11. 医生紧急上班却被邻居车辆挡住，可以起诉吗？｜Doctor’s Emergency Exit Blocked by Neighbor’s Car: Can She Sue?；12. 邻居停车造成精神压力，可以向法院索赔吗？｜Can Mental Stress from Repeated Parking Nuisance Be Compensated?；13. 邻居因停车纠纷威吓挑战打架，法律可以怎样处理？｜Parking Dispute Turns Aggressive: What Legal Remedies Are Available?；14. 私人滋扰案件怎样证明？照片、CCTV和报警记录有多重要？｜How to Prove Private Nuisance: CCTV, Photos and Police Reports；15. 黄线、路口、挡视线：什么停车方式会变成法律纠纷？｜Yellow Lines, Junctions and Blind Spots: When Parking Becomes a Legal Dispute；16. 从邻居乱停车到法院禁令：一宗马来西亚真实案例｜From Illegal Neighbor Parking to Court Injunction: A Malaysian Case；17. 一辆车停出RM5,000赔偿：邻居停车也可以被告？｜One Parked Car, RM5,000 Damages: Can Neighbor Parking Lead to Liability?；18. 马来西亚法院可以禁止邻居再停在你家门前吗？｜Can a Malaysian Court Stop a Neighbor from Parking Near Your Home?；19. Lai Kong Loke v Ting See Leng：邻居停车构成私人滋扰的经典案例｜Lai Kong Loke v Ting See Leng: Private Nuisance by Neighbor Parking；20. 邻里停车不是小事：长期违法停车、挡门和危险路口的法律后果｜Neighbor Parking Is Not a Small Matter: Illegal Parking, Obstruction and Private Nuisance。

1.挡门恶邻｜Blocked by the Neighbor； 急诊来电，车出不去｜Emergency Call, No Way Out；3. 危险拐角｜Dangerous Corner；4. CCTV拍下真相｜CCTV Revealed the Truth；5. 停车纠纷失控｜Parking Dispute Explodes；6. 最后反击｜The Final Stand；7. 一车堵一门｜One Car, One Blocked Gate；8. 黄线停车大战｜Yellow-Line Parking War；9. 家门被堵｜Driveway Blocked；10. 邻居又来了｜The Neighbor Is Back；11. 路口盲点｜Blind Corner Danger；12. 停车停出官司｜Parking Turns Into a Lawsuit；13. 车停门前，火烧心头｜Car at the Gate, Tempers Rising；14. 恶邻停车风暴｜Neighbor Parking Storm；15. CCTV铁证｜Caught on CCTV；16. 不能再忍｜Enough Is Enough；17. 黄线上的战争｜War on the Yellow Line；18. 禁令出手｜Injunction Strikes；19. 门前停车危机｜Driveway Parking Crisis；20. 邻里大战，一车引爆｜One Car Sparks a Neighbor War。

1.马来西亚邻居堵门停车｜Malaysia neighbor blocking driveway； 邻居把车停在家门口｜neighbor parking in front of gate Malaysia；3. 黄线违停私人滋扰｜yellow line illegal parking private nuisance；4. 马来西亚私人滋扰停车案件｜Malaysia private nuisance parking case；5. Road Traffic Rules 1959 Rule 8A Malaysia｜马来西亚黄线停车Rule 8A；6. Road Traffic Rules 1959 Rule 12(1) Malaysia｜马来西亚路口30尺停车Rule 12(1)；7. 路口30尺以内停车｜parking within 30 feet of road junction Malaysia；8. CCTV停车阻挡证据｜CCTV parking obstruction evidence；9. 邻居堵车道禁令｜injunction against neighbor parking Malaysia；10. driveway obstruction lawsuit Malaysia｜马来西亚车道被堵诉讼；11. 停车挡住驾驶视线｜parked car blocking line of sight；12. 危险转角停车｜dangerous corner parking Malaysia；13. 邻居停车威吓纠纷｜neighbor intimidation parking dispute；14. 报警处理邻居停车｜police report parking nuisance Malaysia；15. 私人滋扰RM5,000赔偿｜RM5,000 nominal damages private nuisance；16. 马来西亚黄线停车法律｜Malaysia yellow line parking law；17. 马来西亚路口停车法律｜Malaysia parking near junction law；18. 医生紧急出门被车挡｜doctor emergency driveway blocked；19. Lai Kong Loke v Ting See Leng [2017] 7 MLJ 548｜邻居停车私人滋扰案例；20. Penang High Court parking nuisance case｜槟城高庭邻居停车滋扰案件。判词明确讨论 Rule 8A、Rule 12(1)、黄线停车、距离路口30尺以及车辆遮挡视线造成危险的问题。