The case concerned he construction of breakwaters preventing the free flow of water into a lagoon. The land concerned was considered customary land and owned by neither the plaintiff nor the defendant.  The Court had to answer whether the breakwaters infringed the law and should be dismantled or removed and whether the plaintiff had caused a nuisance by building the breakwaters.

The defendant admitted to having constructed one of the breakwaters and having added coral to the other one, maintaining it. The act falls under the Foreshore Development Act, which states that a written consent from the Minister is necessary for any development on the foreshore of the coast of any island in Vanuatu. There was no question that the construction of breakwaters in a lagoon was considered development in the area of the foreshore. The defendant was therefore found to have acted contrary to law.

Regarding the question of if the construction had constituted a nuisance, several circumstances were pointed out such as rubbish having been washed up on the seashore, sediments deposited and a degradation of the appearance of the lagoon. The plaintiff meant that this inhibited him from the full enjoyment of the land.

The defendant claimed that she had constructed the breakwaters after she had noticed that an area of mangroves had been cut down and mud removed. She said this increased the risk of erosion.

The Court did not find that the defendant had caused any direct nuisance for the plaintiff. However, the construction had caused direct interference to the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the seashore. Therefore the defendant was not allowed to keep the breakwaters so that they affected the plaintiff.