In 1997, the Saudi Black Cement Co began operating a cementplant outside of Riyadh, KSA. The Company employed over 100 localresidents and by 2000 had invested SAR 60 million in this plant.The plant, however emitted large amounts of pollution as well ascausing constant vibrations and loud noise. Local residents filedsuit against the Company claiming that the air pollution, thenoise, and the vibrations were harming their health and property.The suit asked that the court issue an injunction that would closedown the plant until the pollutions and vibrations could beeliminated. The Company was already using the best availabletechnology, which meant that the suit was asking that the pant beclosed down indefinitely. The court refused to issue theinjunction. It reasoned that the costs of closing the plant faroutweighed the benefits to be gained by the residents. Instead, thecourt ruled that the cement company should pay residents a one-timefee for damages that could be proven to exist already, and then paythem a monthly fee to compensate them for ongoing harms. This feewas calculated to be a fair market price for what the residentswould receive if they were inclined and able to rent theirproperty. Questions: Was the decision of the court in this casefair. If so, why? If not, why not?
