Agree with you batz.
Reading again the conclusion to Issue 3, I think I've misinterpreted it in my post ^^^up there. It appears the judge is deciding whether the rule works injustice and should he overrule it. But the judge is certainly considering 'coming to a nuisance' as a defence, and says he only to reject the defence because the claimants were there before the noise, which is why such defence doesn't apply in this case.
Anyway, this is all too complicated for me... I don't even know what some of them words mean!!!