Colombo, 01 October 2026 – In a significant judgment reinforcing property rights and environmental responsibility, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today dismissed an appeal by St Regis Packaging (Pvt) Ltd, affirming previous rulings that the company is liable for damages caused by factory operations to an adjacent property. The apex court’s decision in the case of Peirisge Mary Margaret Fernando v. St Regis Packaging (Pvt) Ltd (SC/APPEAL/228/2025) underscores the robust application of Aquilian action principles under Roman-Dutch Law.
Background to the Dispute: A Neighbourhood Nuisance
The protracted legal battle began on 22nd December 2000, when Plaintiff Peirisge Mary Margaret Fernando instituted action in the District Court against St Regis Packaging (Pvt) Ltd. Fernando, owner of a property adjacent to St Regis Packaging’s factory in Kochchikade, alleged that the heavy machinery and operations at the factory caused significant noise and vibrations. These disturbances, she claimed, resulted in substantial structural damage, including cracks in walls and depressions in floors, to her private dwelling.
Fernando sought a judgment in a sum of Rs. 1,200,000, along with legal interest, and various injunctions against the factory’s operations. Her case was supported by expert testimony from a Civil Engineer, a Quantity Surveyor, and corroborating evidence from several neighbours who also reported structural issues in their homes due to the factory’s vibrations.
The Legal Journey: Consistent Findings Across Courts
The District Court, after hearing extensive evidence, delivered its judgment on 26th February 2018, ruling in favour of the Plaintiff and granting the requested reliefs. Aggrieved by this decision, St Regis Packaging (Pvt) Ltd appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court, which also found in favour of Fernando, reaffirming the District Court’s conclusions.
The matter then escalated to the Supreme Court, where leave was granted on a singular question of law: “Have the learned High Court judges erred in law by failing to assess whether the Plaintiff established a direct correlation between the Defendants’ actions and the alleged damages as the original case is an Aquilian action.” The appeal was heard before a bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Menaka Wijesundera, and Sampath B. Abayakoon, with Justice Menaka Wijesundera delivering the main judgment.
Supreme Court’s Deliberation and the Aquilian Action
The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented at the District Court, particularly the detailed testimony of the Plaintiff’s Civil Engineer, Christopher Seaman. Seaman’s report (P1) and testimony unequivocally attributed the structural damage to the noise and vibrations emanating from the Defendant’s factory, located approximately 40 feet from the Plaintiff’s house. He clarified that while factory buildings are designed to withstand such operational stresses, private dwellings are not.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s witnesses, including the Civil Engineer and Quantity Surveyor, stood firm under lengthy cross-examination. Furthermore, the absence of structural issues in Fernando’s house prior to the factory’s commencement of operations on the adjoining land was a crucial point.
Central to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the principle that a trial judge’s factual findings should not be easily disturbed at the appeal stage unless they are “perverse or plainly contrary to the facts in issue.” Citing precedents like Fradd v. Brown & Co. Ltd and Munasinghe v. Vidanage, the Court affirmed the Civil Appellate High Court’s observation that the trial judge had adequately evaluated the evidence.
The judgment also provided a clear exposition of the Aquilian action under Roman-Dutch Law, which formed the basis of Fernando’s claim. To succeed in an Aquilian action, a plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities:
- Actual pecuniary loss.
- That the loss was due to the defendant’s actions, acting in excess of their rights.
- Dolus culpa (fault, either intentional or negligent) on the part of the defendant.
Referencing Professor R. G. McKerron’s treatise Law of Delict and the Supreme Court’s own decision in Pelis and Another v. Arnaashal, Justice Wijesundera underscored that the wrongful act must involve the invasion of a legally protected interest, resulting in pecuniary loss imputable to the defendant’s fault.
The Verdict: A Victory for Property Owners
Upon careful consideration of all submissions and evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the learned trial judge had appropriately evaluated the evidence, establishing that the Defendant’s wrongful act or omission had caused pecuniary loss to the Plaintiff. This, the Court found, justified the damages awarded by the District Court and subsequently upheld by the Civil Appellate High Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court answered the singular question of law in the negative, finding no error in the High Court’s assessment. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court was affirmed, marking a definitive end to a significant legal battle.
This ruling reinforces the fundamental right of property owners to peaceful enjoyment of their land and holds industrial operations accountable for their potential impact on adjacent communities, setting a vital precedent for future cases involving environmental nuisance and property damage in Sri Lanka.
Source: Read original document