Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852<\/strong><\/p>\n Nuisance \u2013 Private Nuisance \u2013 Use of Land \u2013 Character of Locality<\/p>\n The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within.\u00a0 His shed was on the boundary of the property and happened to be next door to a confectioner.\u00a0 The confectioner had produced sweets in his kitchen for many years before the doctor had moved in.\u00a0 The doctor alleged that the noise of the confectioner grinding his pestle and mortar was clearly audible from his shed and that this disrupted his amenity in the form of his enjoyment of his land.<\/p>\n Whether the doctor could claim loss of amenity when he had \u2018moved to the nuisance\u2019 or not.\u00a0 Whether the character of the area or locality as a residential area meant that there was a nuisance.<\/p>\n There was a nuisance, and the fact that the doctor had \u2018moved to the nuisance\u2019 was no defence to the nuisance itself.\u00a0 Nor was there an easement acquired by the confectioner through long usage that entitled him to continue with his actions.\u00a0 What constitutes a nuisance was to be decided on a case to case basis, and it is necessary to consider the particular locality itself.\u00a0 What is not a nuisance in one area may well be a nuisance in another and it would be unjust if the nuisance maker had been permitted to continue with the nuisance indefinitely and without power of law to interrupt if this was to be considered a right acquired by long usage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within.\u00a0 His shed was on the boundary of the property and happened to be next door to a confectioner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-4862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n
Decision\/Outcome<\/h3>\n