<\/p>\n
CITATION<\/p>\n
Miller v. Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966<\/p>\n
Court of Appeal \u2013 three Lords Justice, Lord Justice Denning as Master of the Rolls (M.R.), Lord Justices Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS<\/p>\n
The land is leased to a cricket club, by the owners, for the purpose of playing cricket. The enjoyment of the land, by the cricket club, has been in place for a period of 70 years. The adjoining land was sold for development \u2013 a housing development. Since the houses were built, thirteen cricket balls have travelled over the fence into the gardens of the housing development occupants. The act of playing cricket is causing nuisance in the new development, while the neighbours attempt to enjoy their land. Although remedy was offered by the appellants in the way of louvered shutters and unbreakable glass windows, this was not accepted by the respondents. The cricket club extended the fence from 6 ft to just less than 15ft and one ball has gone over the fence into the garden of the respondents since that time. There was not, at the date of hearing the case, a situation of personal injury caused by the cricket balls going over the fence and into the gardens of the adjoining land.<\/p>\n
PROCEDURAL HISTORY<\/p>\n
The original case was heard in the High Court of Justice, Nottingham by Judge Trevor Reeve. The judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded damages of \u00a3174.14 – \u00a324.14 special damages and \u00a3150 being \u00a330 per year for five years for personal inconvenience and interference with the enjoyment of the plaintiff\u2019s home. An injunction was also granted to stop cricket being played. The defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n
GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL\/ISSUES TO BE DECIDED<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal needed to consider whether the cricket club is guilty of negligence by not reasonably avoiding harm of their neighbour and having cricket balls go into the garden of their neighbour and\/or nuisance by not allowing their neighbour to enjoy their land while cricket is being played. The Court also needed to consider whether the injunction to stop the cricket club playing cricket was appropriate in the circumstances. An issue to be decided is whether, even though the appellants extended the fence from 6 ft to 14 ft, balls will still go over the fence into the garden of the respondents, impacting the ability for the respondents to enjoy their land. Have the defendants taken reasonable care for the safety of their neighbour?<\/p>\n
Part A (cont.)<\/p>\n
SUMMARY OF COURTS ANALYSIS OF THE LAW<\/p>\n
Lord Denning considered this to be a new case and applied Sedleigh-Denfield v. O\u2019Callaghan [1940] A.C. 880, 903 to nuisance in this case finding that the playing of cricket is the most reasonable use of the land and cannot be considered nuisance when it was not a nuisance before the houses were built. For the injunction to be appropriate remedy, the defendants must be guilty of nuisance. Lord Denning distinguished Sturges v. Bridgman, (1879) 11 Ch.D. 852 as old law and not applicable to this case. An injunction could only be sought were the defendants were guilty of nuisance which was not the case.<\/p>\n
On the matter of negligence, Geoffrey Lane L.J. considered Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd. [1953] A.C. 643 where the defendants had done everything reasonable to prevent injury. In this case though, he stated it was \u2018a continuing failure to prevent incidents, coupled with the certainty they are going to happen.\u2019 Therefore the defendants would be guilty of negligence. In relation to nuisance, Geoffrey Lane L.J. applied Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch.D. 852. This was a similar case where one person was using his land without negligence or nuisance to anyone for 20 years, until his neighbour built an adjoining room and the activities were then considered to be nuisance. On this basis, the cricket club is guilty of nuisance. Cumming-Bruce L.J. concurred and extended Raphael v. Thames Valley Railway Co. (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 37, 46 to consider the public interests regarding the injunction. Sedleigh-Denfield v. O\u2019Callaghan [1940] A.C. 880, 903 was also considered to provide balance of the public and private interests.<\/p>\n
PRINCIPLE OF LAW TO BE APPLIED<\/p>\n
The risk of injury must be balanced against what would need to be done, to eliminate a problem, and what a person could reasonably be expected to do to prevent accidents from happening. A balance also needs to be maintained between public and private interest. Consideration of whether there was an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff\u2019s enjoyment of their land and where potential physical damage was likely in the future. A person cannot bring nuisance on themselves by coming to live so close to a person that they would inevitably be affected by another person\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n
DESCRIPTION OF HOW LAW APPLIED TO THE FACTS<\/p>\n
Cumming-Bruce L.J. indicated that the defendants were negligent due to a continuing failure to prevent incidents from happening. He also indicated that while the club continued to play cricket, they would not be able to prevent injury from happening. The public\u2019s interest was also considered as cricket was a pastime for the whole village. This was weighed against the interests of the individual\u2019s right to enjoy their land free of nuisance. Despite increasing the height of the fence, it is inevitable that cricket balls will still go over the fence which, in turn, creates a danger for the occupants of the adjoining land.<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
The defendants are guilty of negligence for not being able to prevent the risk of injury or damage. The defendants are guilty of nuisance, due to ratio decidendi from a previous case \u2013 Sturges v Bridgman, 11 Ch.D. 852. The plaintiff\u2019s moving into a house so close to a cricket ground does not stop the defendants from causing nuisance. The injunction was reversed.<\/p>\n
ORDER MADE BY THE COURT<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed. Past and future damages increased to \u00a3400. There is no order for costs in Court of Appeal or below save legal aid taxation.<\/p>\n
SOCIAL OR CULTURAL CONTEXT<\/p>\n
It was made clear in this case that cricket played a large role in the community. The Lords Justice considered whether Judge Reeve had properly considered the public\u2019s interest when making his decision. The importance of having such a summer pastime for young and old was valuable to the community.<\/p>\n
PART B – Case Law Research<\/p>\n
Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966<\/p>\n
Miller v Jackson denotes the name of the case.<\/p>\n
[1977] \u2013 The year the case was published<\/p>\n
1 \u2013 Volume Number of the report series for the year<\/p>\n
QB \u2013 report series abbreviation. Queen\u2019s Bench series of authorised law reports<\/p>\n
966 \u2013 page number<\/p>\n
[1977] 3 All ER 338 and [1977] 3 WLR 20<\/p>\n
LexisNexis AU > CaseBase > search case name \u2018Miller and Jackson\u2019 > all of the citations for the case are listed under the case name heading<\/p>\n
Click on the hyperlinks available for each of the citations under case name heading > [1977] 3 WLR 20. This citation provided me with the full judgment.<\/p>\n
Lexis Nexis<\/p>\n
Queensland Reports<\/p>\n
Northern Territory Reports<\/p>\n
Australian Capital Territory Reports<\/p>\n
Legal Online<\/p>\n
Commonwealth Law Reports<\/p>\n
Federal Court Reports<\/p>\n
New South Wales Law Reports<\/p>\n
Australian cases \u2018followed\u2019 or \u2018applied\u2019<\/p>\n
Citation of your assigned case<\/p>\n
(in correct AGLC style)<\/p>\n
Source\/s used to update your case e.g. CaseBase Cases<\/p>\n
Citation of the subsequent case<\/p>\n
(in correct AGLC style)<\/p>\n
Treatment (followed\/applied)<\/p>\n
Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966<\/p>\n
CaseBase Cases<\/p>\n
Champagne View Pty Ltd v Shearwater Resort Management Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 214<\/p>\n
Applied<\/p>\n
FirstPoint through LegalOnline<\/p>\n
Part B (cont.)<\/p>\n
(in correct AGLC format)<\/p>\n
Brief outline of your search strategy (including the case law research product consulted)<\/p>\n
Elston v Dore (1982) 149 CLR 480<\/p>\n
FirstPoint > Cases (heading) > searched for private nuisance, also Jurisdiction \u2018Commonwealth of Australia\u2019 and Court \u2018High Court of Australia\u2019 > Reported Cases only<\/p>\n
Fanigun Pty Ltd v Woolworths Limited [2006] 2 Qd R 366<\/p>\n
LexisNexis AU > Queensland Reports > searched Jurisdiction \u2018Queensland\u2019 and Court \u2018QLD Supreme Court\u2019<\/p>\n
Both of these cases are available on AustLII. I went to the AustLII database @ USQ Library and searched for both cases in Boolean format with the parties names and got 100% for each.<\/p>\n
Authorised law reports are authorised by the judiciary to publish whereas on the internet, these have not received any authority to publish and therefore may not be relied upon as unequivocally as the authorised reports.<\/p>\n
Part C \u2013 Secondary Sources, Annotated Bibliography and Reflections<\/p>\n
Books & the Library Catalogue<\/p>\n
Citation: John Carvan, Understanding the Australian Legal System (Lawbook Co., 4th ed, 2002) ch 1.<\/p>\n
Search process: USQ Library > Books, DVD\u2019s & more > Title: \u2018precedent\u2019 > Location: Springfield<\/p>\n
Author \u2013 John Carvan<\/p>\n
Title of the book \u2013 Understanding the Australian Legal System<\/p>\n
Edition number \u2013 4th edition<\/p>\n
Publication Year \u2013 2002<\/p>\n
Publisher \u2013 Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited trading as Lawbook Co.<\/p>\n
Part C (cont.)<\/p>\n
Search process: USQ Library > Journals and databases > Subject : Law > LexisNexis AU > Halsbury\u2019s Laws of Australia > search terms: the doctrine of precedent > 1. (D) Conditions for bringing on an International Claim<\/p>\n
Encyclopaedia publisher \u2013 LexisNexis AU<\/p>\n
Encyclopaedia name – Halbury\u2019s Laws of Australia<\/p>\n
Title number & name \u2013 215 \u2013 Foreign Relations<\/p>\n
Sub-title number & name \u2013 (7) State Responsibility and Aliens<\/p>\n
Paragraph number \u2013 215-760<\/p>\n
Currency \u2013 03 December 2008<\/p>\n
Journal Articles<\/p>\n
Search process: Legal Online > Journals (heading) > entered Case Name \u2018miller and jackson\u2019 & citation \u20181 QB 966\u2019<\/p>\n
Article Author \u2013 Karinne Ludlow<\/p>\n
Article Title \u2013 Genetically Modified Organisms and Private Nuisance Liability<\/p>\n
Year of Publication \u2013 2005<\/p>\n
Volume Issue Number \u2013 13<\/p>\n
Journal Title \u2013 Tort Law Review<\/p>\n
Starting Page Number \u2013 92<\/p>\n
Annotated Bibliography<\/p>\n
Carvan, John, Understanding the Australian Legal System (Lawbook, 4th ed, 2002)<\/p>\n
I located this item through the USQ Library database and searched in the print collection. I viewed this item on Saturday, 28 August 2010. This is an introductory law textbook with the main topics being given about the different kinds of law e.g. taxation and industrial law. The author has indicated that the intended audience is for first year students of law. The item was published in 2002. The nature of the chapter I sighted is still current as the foundation of law, the common law, has not changed. The author taught introductory and commercial law at two Australian universities. The publishers are well regarded and own the law database \u2018Legal Online\u2019. I didn\u2019t find that I learnt anything new from reading this chapter, as we have already covered these topics in our own studies. It was a very easy read.<\/p>\n
Part C (cont.)<\/p>\n
LexisNexis, Halsbury\u2019s Laws of Australia, 3 December 2008, 215 Foreign Relations, \u20187 State Responsibility and Aliens\u2019 [215-760]<\/p>\n
I located this item through the USQ Library databases and searched in LexisNexis for Halbury\u2019s Laws of Australia then searched for \u2018the doctrine of precedent\u2019. I viewed this item on Saturday, 28 August 2010. The focus of this particular paragraph is in relation to a country making a diplomatic claim for a person who is their citizen and provides details about how the local laws should first be exhausted before intervention by the country. The paragraph is current as at 3 December 2008. The information in this paragraph was supported by a number of other sources e.g. references to relevant cases. I found the information very interesting, I personally was not aware of the necessity for a country to wait until all other means have been exhausted.<\/p>\n
Ludlow, Karinne, \u2018Genetically Modified Organisms and Private Nuisance Liability\u2019 (2005) 13 Tort Law Review 92<\/p>\n
I located this item by searching through Legal Online using the case name & citation search boxes. I viewed this item on 30 August 2010. Karinne Ludlow is a lecturer of Law at Monash University and the article was published by Lawbook Co., so therefore a reliable reputation. The article is heavily referenced to other sources. The main focus of this article is about the ability of farmers who are not utilising GMO\u2019s and have adjoining land with their neighbours who are, with their own farms being impacted. The article was published in 2005 and I did a little further research and there are current updates about GMO\u2019s in Halbury\u2019s Laws of Australia. I learnt a great deal from this item, it allowed me to see the material facts of my case, regarding nuisance, applied in a different way.<\/p>\n
Self Reflection<\/p>\n
On reflection, a more detailed and planned approach to this assignment would have been beneficial. I found I kept re-reading the assignment and changing it each time. This was due to my own lack of confidence in my ability to get it right. I really enjoyed this assignment, albeit challenging.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CITATION Miller v. Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966 Court of Appeal \u2013 three Lords Justice, Lord Justice Denning as Master of the Rolls (M.R.), Lord Justic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-3667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaysproperty-trusts","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\n