Miller v Jackson: Difference between revisions

Miller v Jackson (view source)

53 bytes added , 25 August 2017

no edit summary

82,459

edits

Revision as of 08:47, 25 August 2017 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 08:49, 25 August 2017 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	With news that a housing developer has taken an action in nuisance against a local cricket club on account of the noise of leather on willow, can I remind all that the [[common law]] principle that “[[coming to the nuisance is no defence]]” ({{casenote\|Sturges\|Bridgman}} (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852) does not apply to [[cricket]] as it is, by legal definition, incapable of being a {{tag\|nuisance}} because it is so super. (Lord Denning in {{casenote\|Miller\|\|Jackson}} [1977] QB 966.		With [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-41044810 news that a housing developer has taken an action in nuisance against a local cricket club] on account of the noise of leather on willow, can I remind all that the [[common law]] principle that “[[coming to the nuisance is no defence]]” ({{casenote\|Sturges\|Bridgman}} (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852) does not apply to [[cricket]] as it is, by legal definition, incapable of being a {{tag\|nuisance}} because it is so super. (Lord Denning in {{casenote\|Miller\|\|Jackson}} [1977] QB 966.

	Relevant part of his (alas, dissenting) judgment:		Relevant part of his (alas, dissenting) judgment: