82,467
edits
Miller v Jackson: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
One could read Lord Denning’s judgment a couple of ways: either that the [[Coming to the nuisance is no defence|general principle]] doesn’t apply to {{tag|cricket}} or that {{tag|cricket}} is, at law, not capable of being a {{tag|nuisance}}, on account of its incalculable excellence and that its benefit to the general public outweighs any detriment to some curmudgeonly idiot who hates the game but still buys a house next to a {{tag|cricket}} ground). | One could read Lord Denning’s judgment a couple of ways: either that the [[Coming to the nuisance is no defence|general principle]] doesn’t apply to {{tag|cricket}} or that {{tag|cricket}} is, at law, not capable of being a {{tag|nuisance}}, on account of its incalculable excellence and that its benefit to the general public outweighs any detriment to some curmudgeonly idiot who hates the game but still buys a house next to a {{tag|cricket}} ground). | ||
It should be noted that Lord Denning’s view was articulated in the course of a dissenting judgment (the remainder of the Court of Appeal was sympathetic to his excellent argument but felt itself [[Doctrine of precedent|bound]] by the judgment in {{Sturges|Bridgman}} and, for whatever reason, the Lintz {{tag|Cricket}} Club did not appeal) so, in the eyes of the {{tag|common law}}, {{tag|cricket}} remains susceptible to {{tag|nuisance}} actions until the Supreme Court can definitively rule on the matter. | It should be noted that Lord Denning’s view was articulated in the course of a dissenting judgment (the remainder of the Court of Appeal was sympathetic to his excellent argument but felt itself [[Doctrine of precedent|bound]] by the judgment in {{casenote|Sturges|Bridgman}} and, for whatever reason, the Lintz {{tag|Cricket}} Club did not appeal) so, in the eyes of the {{tag|common law}}, {{tag|cricket}} remains susceptible to {{tag|nuisance}} actions until the Supreme Court can definitively rule on the matter. | ||
Perhaps now it will get its chance. | Perhaps now it will get its chance. | ||