Miller+v.+Jackson


 * __Facts__**: Millers bought a house on the edge of a cricket club that had been there for 70 years. Balls sometimes go over into the Millers' yard and have caused some damage to the house, despite the club's construction of a concrete wall and chain-link fence on top of it. The club offered to take whatever means necessary to prevent balls from going over (ex. set up a safety net) and to pay for damage to the home, but the Millers refused. They sued in negligence and nuisance and sought an injunction, granted in lower courts.


 * __Issues__**: Was there nuisance? Should an injunction be granted as a remedy? **Held**: Yes. No.

- Cricket is a great tradition in this country. Miller was a "newcomer" whereas the club had been there for many years. Insisting on stopping the cricket balls would lead to the club's demise, which would be a shame for the whole town. - The complaint is unfair. The club did //everything it could// to be considerate, to prevent balls from going over, and to remedy the damage. - Plaintiff relies on Lord Reid in //Bolton:// you shouldn't play at all if you can't play without creating substantial risk. True, but **the club was there first.** - The appropriate test: was the use of the area by the cricket club a reasonable use of land? *The building of the house near the cricket pitch does not "convert the playing of cricket into a nuisance when it was not so before."
 * __Reasoning__ (Denning)**:**Ode to cricket. Plaintiffs are mean. No nuisance. No injunction.**

- **Nowadays we have to BALANCE the conflicting interests of the parties**:
 * Cricket club's interest in having people play for 70 years beats newcomers' right to sit out in the garden
 * **public interest** (protecting the environment by preserving playing fields in the face of mounting development) versus **private interest** (securing the privacy of one's home)

- It's not about damages: club has already agreed to pay for any damage that has occurred/may occur. It's about the injunction: there shouldn't be one.

- We must strike a **BALANCE** between public and private (homeowners') interests - Plaintiffs elected to build their house close to the cricket pitch where it was obvious that balls might be hit over the fence - can they stop cricket from being played? YES - There is negligence and nuisance. The court is bound by //Sturges v. Bridgman//: the argument that plaintiffs came to the nuisance is no excuse. - Injunction upheld but postponed for 12 months.
 * __Reasoning__ (Geoffrey Lane LJ)**: **There is negligence and nuisance. Injunction allowed (somewhat reluctantly), according to precedent.**

- There are **special circumstances** which the High Court judge seems to have failed to take into account: the plaintiffs must have noticed how close to the cricket pitch they were building their house; also, the plaintiffs seem unreasonably hostile
 * __Reasoning__ (Cumming-Bruce L.J.): Agree with Geoffrey Lane but no injunction.**
 * -** We must strike a **BALANCE** between the plaintiffs' and village inhabitants' interests