82,891
edits
Coming to the nuisance is no defence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Coming to the nuisance is no defence (view source)
Revision as of 08:41, 25 August 2017
, 25 August 2017no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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 complaining about it doesn't stop it being a {{tag|nuisance}}. | 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 complaining about it doesn't stop it being a {{tag|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 {{tag|nuisance}}, then saying "the nuisance was here first" is no defence. | So if someone moves into the neighborhood and decides this thing everyone else doesn't consider a nuisance ''is'' a {{tag|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 {{tag|cricket}} or (b) {{tag|cricket}} is, at law, not a {{tag|nuisance}} (per Lord Denning MR's juidgment in {{Casenote|Miller|Jackson}}. Sadly Lord Denning’s very famous view was articulated in the course of a dissenting judgment so sadly, in the eyes of the {{tag|common law}}, {{tag|cricket}} | There is a suggestion that either (a) this general principle doesn't apply to {{tag|cricket}} or (b) {{tag|cricket}} is, at law, not a {{tag|nuisance}} (per Lord Denning MR's juidgment in {{Casenote|Miller|Jackson}}. Sadly Lord Denning’s very famous view was articulated 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 {{Sturges|Bridgman}}, and for whaever reason, the Lintz {{tag|Cricket}} Club did not appeal) so sadly, in the eyes of the {{tag|common law}}, {{tag|cricket}} remains susceptible to {{tag|nuisance}} actions. | ||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
*[[Nuisance]] | |||
* {{casenote|Miller|Jackson}} | * {{casenote|Miller|Jackson}} | ||
*{{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} | |||