A couple who claimed they were exposed to very serious and aggravating noise on a daily basis from the Luas, which runs close to their home south Dublin home, have lost their High Court action.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy dismissed the claims by Paula and Vincent Smyth, of Cambridge Terrace, Leeson Park, Dublin, after finding they had not established a "nuisance" under the relevant laws.
The couple, whose home is close to the Green Line, had sued the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd, operator of the Luas for the RPA. The Attorney General was a notice party in the case.
The Smyths had claimed their enjoyment of their home was "severely undermined and compromised" due to noise from the LUAS since it began operating in July 2004.
A tram passed their home 330 times between 5.30am and 12.30 am every weekday and 254 times daily at the weekend, they said.
They claimed they were unable to enjoy their garden or hold a conversation when a tram passed and were unable to sleep properly. Their bedroom faced onto the Luas embankment and they regularly had to sleep with the windows shut and with ear plugs.
During the planning stages of the Luas in the late 1990s, the Smyths said they believed special noise reduction screens would be erected at certain sensitive locations where the light rail would pass.
In their 16 day action, the couple sought injunctions restraining the defendants operating the Luas in a manner that causes a noise nuisance and requiring them to erect an appropriate barrier to reduce the noise. They also sought damages.
In denying the claims, the defendants said the Luas was operated in accordance with the terms of the Transport Light Rail Acts of 1996 and 2001 which did not provide, as a matter of law, for the nuisance alleged.
In a lengthy judgment toay, Ms Justice Laffoy said the issue of noise from the Luas had been dealt with at a public inquiry and had not been challenged.
By operating within the noise levels predicted in an Environmental Impact Statement which accompanied the application to construct the Green Line, the RPA was not infringing the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the plaintiffs home, she said.
She ruled the couple were not entitled to contend the Green Line must be operated in accordance with WHO guidelines or standards other than those established for permitted environmental effects and impacts of the construction and operation of a major public infrastructure.
This was a "difficult" case but, despite the fact the RPA had failed to comply with a requirement to monitor day and night-time noise levels, there were no circumstances in which the Smyths could be entitled to the reliefs sought.
The judge adjourned the matter to later this month to allow the parties consider her judgment.