Miller v Jackson: Difference between revisions

Miller v Jackson (view source)

6 bytes added , 17 July 2019

no edit summary

82,469

edits

Revision as of 15:29, 25 August 2017 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 11:06, 17 July 2019 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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, it is worth bearing in mind that the [[common law]] principle that “[[coming to the nuisance is no defence]]” ({{casenote\|Sturges\|Bridgman}} (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852) arguably does not apply to [[cricket]] as it is legally incapable of being a {{tag\|nuisance}}, because it is so super. (Lord Denning in {{casenote\|Miller\|Jackson}} [1977] QB 966.		{{cn}}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, it is worth bearing in mind that the [[common law]] principle that “[[coming to the nuisance is no defence]]” ({{casenote\|Sturges\|Bridgman}} (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852) arguably does not apply to [[cricket]] as it is legally incapable of being a {{tag\|nuisance}}, because it is so super. (Lord Denning in {{casenote\|Miller\|Jackson}} [1977] QB 966.

	Relevant part of Lord Denning’s (alas, dissenting) Court of Appeal judgment:		Relevant part of Lord Denning’s (alas, dissenting) Court of Appeal judgment: