Coming to the nuisance is no defence: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "The principle, established in {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} that if something is a nuisance, the fact that it has been a {{tag|nuisance}} for a long time without anyone compla..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The principle, established in {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} that if something is a nuisance, the fact that it has been a | The principle, established in {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} that if something is a nuisance, the fact that it has been a [[nuisance]] for a long time without anyone complaining about it doesn't stop it being a [[nuisance]]. In {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} it was an apothecary’s noisy mortar and pestle. | ||
So if someone moves into the neighborhood and decides this thing everyone else doesn't consider a nuisance ''is'' a | So if someone moves into the neighborhood and decides this thing everyone else doesn't consider a nuisance ''is'' a [[nuisance]], then saying "the nuisance was here first" is no defence. | ||
There is a suggestion that either (a) this general principle doesn't apply to cricket or (b) cricket is, at law, not a nuisance (per Lord Denning MR's | ===Can [[cricket]] ever be a [[nuisance]]?=== | ||
There is a suggestion that either (a) this general principle doesn't apply to [[cricket]] or (b) [[cricket]] is, at law, not a [[nuisance]] (per Lord Denning MR's judgment in {{Casenote|Miller|Jackson}}. Sadly Lord Denning articulated his famous view in the course of a dissenting judgment (the remainder of the court was sympathetic to Lord Denning’s excellent arguments but felt itself [[Doctrine of precedent|bound]] by the superior court judgment in {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}}, and for whatever reason, the Lintz [[Cricket]] Club did not appeal) so sadly, in the eyes of the [[common law]], [[cricket]] remains susceptible to [[nuisance]] actions. | |||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
*[[Nuisance]] | |||
* {{casenote|Miller|Jackson}} | * {{casenote|Miller|Jackson}} | ||
*{{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
The principle, established in Sturges v Bridgman that if something is a nuisance, the fact that it has been a nuisance for a long time without anyone complaining about it doesn't stop it being a nuisance. In Sturges v Bridgman it was an apothecary’s noisy mortar and pestle.
So if someone moves into the neighborhood and decides this thing everyone else doesn't consider a nuisance is a nuisance, then saying "the nuisance was here first" is no defence.
Can cricket ever be a nuisance?
There is a suggestion that either (a) this general principle doesn't apply to cricket or (b) cricket is, at law, not a nuisance (per Lord Denning MR's judgment in Miller v Jackson. Sadly Lord Denning articulated his famous view in the course of a dissenting judgment (the remainder of the court was sympathetic to Lord Denning’s excellent arguments but felt itself bound by the superior court judgment in Sturges v Bridgman, and for whatever reason, the Lintz Cricket Club did not appeal) so sadly, in the eyes of the common law, cricket remains susceptible to nuisance actions.