Bird war in Norbrook

A businessman has been ordered by the Jamaican high court to remove a flock of exotic birds and other pets from his home in the upper-class Norbrook, St Andrew, area after one of his neighbours complained about the noise nuisance.

Alexander Haber, owner of the auto-parts chain Alex’s Imports, has also been barred from using or permitting the use of his property to house any “unusual pet birds” or any other pets that cause or might cause “extremely loud noises”.

The ruling was handed down last Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by a neighbour, marketing executive Dwain Williams, who complained that the “extremely loud” noises from the exotic pets create a “private nuisance” to him and his family.

It’s believed by some legal experts to be a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a homeowner’s right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.

Haber’s collection of exotic birds includes 20 macaws, four cockatoos, two Japanese fowls and an African grey parrot, he acknowledged in court documents obtained by The Sunday Gleaner.

Tests conducted separately by two experts from inside Williams’ home each concluded that the noise coming from the birds “regularly” exceeded the national noise standard established by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) for residential zones, the court documents revealed.

Comparing the noise level to a truck and a circular saw, one of the experts gave evidence that the sounds recorded over each one-hour interval were in the region of 90 decibels and “on some occasions in the 100s”.

Jamaica’s National Noise Standard for residential areas is 55 decibels between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 50 decibels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Haber, in arguing his case before the Supreme Court, contended that he is entitled to the use of his property and that he does so by keeping and tending to his birds. He argued, too, that the noise emanating from his property existed at the time Williams viewed, inspected and eventually acquired the property.

Justice Chester Stamp, in his judgment, acknowledged that Haber was entitled to the “reasonable” enjoyment of his property.

However, noting that the sudden and intermittent loud noises by the birds disturbed and interfered with Williams’ enjoyment of his property, Stamp concluded that Haber’s right to keep his pets did not compare with his neighbour’s right to not have his property unreasonably interfered with.

PLANS TO APPEAL

Haber indicated, in one of two interviews with The Sunday Gleaner last Friday, that he was “not comfortable” with the ruling and vowed to challenge it before the Court of Appeal.

“I am not satisfied with the judgment so I am going to appeal,” he said.

The businessman indicated, too, that “before the end of the month” the birds will be relocated to another property he purchased in St Andrew, but explained that this was something planned before the court battle.

However, in a telephone call minutes later, he indicated that he wanted to withdraw his earlier comments “because I need to speak to my lawyer before I speak to you”.

Williams and his pregnant wife were “very happy” with the decision, according to their attorney, Leonard Green.

“Now they can use the deck that they had acquired when they purchased the property without interference from the noises being made by the birds owned by the neighbour,” Green said.

The attorney explained that Williams’ decision to not seek compensation for damages against Haber was his way of speeding up the hearing of the case.

“Had we applied for damages, the case would have gone on to the cause list and be put off for three years. This is what you would call an urgent application and this is why the court dealt with it in under a year,” Green said, noting that his client retains the right to seek compensation at a later stage.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com