The court’s decision was not well justified and subject to appeal and overruling since it decided on the harm related to health only and did not investigate other aspects of harm nor did it positively or negatively answered. The court when based its arguments to affirm the decision, ordering the rejection of the two appellants’ request, on the fact that no harm has occurred until now, even though the plaintiffs mentioned in their appeal reasons the noise emitted by the disputed device and confirmed it in their memorandum to the court’s hearing. They stated in this memorandum that the harm is caused by noise and by the fall of a metal plate from the device in the yard of the first plaintiff and that why there is a mean to prove amplification of harm caused by this device.

Decision overruled