Edited by Gayle Cosgrove, Monday, 21 Apr 2025, 16:24
In my November blog post, I wrote about how I would use my Open University blog for case summaries.
And as promised, my first case summary is below.
However, before I do that, I want to explain where I first came across this case, and why I knew it would be the first one I wrote about.
Before I began studying with the Open University, I completed a Level 3 Paralegal diploma with the National Association of Licensed Paralegals.
That was my way of testing myself, after the idea of Law was put to me by a colleague.
However, I was floundering a little and finding judgments hard to understand.
That all changed when I read the judgment for Miller v Jackson (citation and reference within case summary), and the first paragraph had me laughing out loud.
This was the first judgment that made me feel that I was capable of understanding law.
Reading a judgment is a skill I am still working on, as is writing a case summary as it turns out.
I am not sure if I have the correct structure and format, so this will be ongoing. Any guidance and tips will be appreciated.
Procedural History: Court
of First Instance: High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench division Durham District
Registry.
Heard by Mr Justice Reeve.
Judges:
The Master of the Rolls Lord
Denning
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Legal Issues:
The torts of negligence and
nuisance.
The right of the cricket club to
continue using their grounds which it has for many years before the housing
development, verses the right of Mr and Mrs Miller to enjoy their private space
without fear of injury and damage.
Concurring opinion on the
legal issues: Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane, Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Dissenting opinion: Lord
Denning
Concurring opinion on the
remedy: Lord Denning, Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Dissenting opinion: Lord
Justice Geoffrey Lane
Facts:
The plaintiffs were Mr and Mrs
Miller.
The defendants, represented by the
club chairman Mr Jackson, were Lintz Cricket Club.
The cricket club had been playing
cricket on its grounds for 70 years, before neighbouring land owned by the
National Coal Board was sold to a property developer.
One of the new builds that was
built on the boundary with the cricket club – 98 feet from where it was played
– was purchased by Mr and Mrs Miller.
As a result of the proximity,
cricket balls would land in the property of the Millers regularly, and at times
caused damaged.
The two sides attempted to find a
resolution to the problem.
Lintz Cricket Club took action in
attempting to prevent balls from landing in the neighbouring property; they
directed members to deliver low balls and installed a 6-foot-high fence with an
additional galvanised chain-link fence on top which raised it to 15-foot-high.
The Club offered to pay for all
future damage (£400), as well as pay all expenses, install an additional safety
net over the neighbour’s garden, and pay for the installation of unbreakable
glass in their windows.
However, when balls continued to
damage their property, the Millers sued for damaged, and an injunction to stop
cricket play on the grounds.
Decision:
An argument had been made by Counsel
for Mr Jackson that there was a defence against the torts of negligence and
nuisance, as Mr and Mrs Miller had “come to the nuisance.”
However, this defence was dismissed
due to a previous ruling having established that coming to a nuisance was no
defence (Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D. 852).[2]
The case of Sturges v Bridgman
continues to be a positive judicial consideration.
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane and Lord
Justice Cumming-Bruce were both of the opinion that Mr Jackson and the cricket
club were guilty of nuisance every time a cricket ball broke the boundary line,
and guilty of negligence due to knowing the risk of potential injury every time
a cricket ball came over the fence, and allowing that to continue.
Lord Denning was the dissenting opinion
and held that the cricket club had better rights due to having played cricket
there for 70 years prior to the housing development. He also made comment on
the proximity of the housing development and that the responsibility of this
rested with the property developers, not the cricket club.
In relation to the remedy, Lord
Denning and Lord Justice Cuming-Bruce agreed that the boundaries between negligence
and nuisance were blurred in this instance, and difficult to distinguish separately.
It is of their opinion that allowing an injunction would result in the demise
of the cricket club.
They did, however, acknowledge
that there needs to be a balance between the cricket club and Mr and Mrs Miller,
and as such, because of the service to the local community by the cricket club,
the offer of paying for the repair of damages by the cricket club was deemed
adequate, with the amount awarded to Mr and Mrs Miller, increased to £400 to
cover future instances.
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane (1977a)
was the dissenting opinion to the remedy and stated that Mr and Mrs Miller
should not have to live with the constant knowledge that they and their
property were at risk of injury and/or damage during the summer months and therefore
would grant the injunction.
What happened next?
This case did not change the law.
What it did do, was go on to
provide more flexibility in relation to the granting or denying of an
injunction as a remedy for the torts of negligence and nuisance, rather than an award of damages, which was more typical.
As to the disputing neighbours, not
long after the Court of Appeal judgment, Mr and Mrs Miller sold the property
and moved to a different area.
References:
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane (1977a)
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966. Available at the following URLs (Accessed
09/12/2024):
Case Summary: Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966
In my November blog post, I wrote about how I would use my Open University blog for case summaries.
And as promised, my first case summary is below.
However, before I do that, I want to explain where I first came across this case, and why I knew it would be the first one I wrote about.
Before I began studying with the Open University, I completed a Level 3 Paralegal diploma with the National Association of Licensed Paralegals.That was my way of testing myself, after the idea of Law was put to me by a colleague.
However, I was floundering a little and finding judgments hard to understand.
That all changed when I read the judgment for Miller v Jackson (citation and reference within case summary), and the first paragraph had me laughing out loud.
This was the first judgment that made me feel that I was capable of understanding law.
Reading a judgment is a skill I am still working on, as is writing a case summary as it turns out.
I am not sure if I have the correct structure and format, so this will be ongoing. Any guidance and tips will be appreciated.
Thank you.
CASE SUMMARY
Citation: Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966.[1]
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil division
Date: 6th April 1977
Procedural History: Court of First Instance: High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench division Durham District Registry.
Heard by Mr Justice Reeve.
Judges:
The Master of the Rolls Lord Denning
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Legal Issues:
The torts of negligence and nuisance.
The right of the cricket club to continue using their grounds which it has for many years before the housing development, verses the right of Mr and Mrs Miller to enjoy their private space without fear of injury and damage.
Concurring opinion on the legal issues: Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane, Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Dissenting opinion: Lord Denning
Concurring opinion on the remedy: Lord Denning, Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Dissenting opinion: Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
Facts:
The plaintiffs were Mr and Mrs Miller.
The defendants, represented by the club chairman Mr Jackson, were Lintz Cricket Club.
The cricket club had been playing cricket on its grounds for 70 years, before neighbouring land owned by the National Coal Board was sold to a property developer.
One of the new builds that was built on the boundary with the cricket club – 98 feet from where it was played – was purchased by Mr and Mrs Miller.
As a result of the proximity, cricket balls would land in the property of the Millers regularly, and at times caused damaged.
The two sides attempted to find a resolution to the problem.
Lintz Cricket Club took action in attempting to prevent balls from landing in the neighbouring property; they directed members to deliver low balls and installed a 6-foot-high fence with an additional galvanised chain-link fence on top which raised it to 15-foot-high.
The Club offered to pay for all future damage (£400), as well as pay all expenses, install an additional safety net over the neighbour’s garden, and pay for the installation of unbreakable glass in their windows.
However, when balls continued to damage their property, the Millers sued for damaged, and an injunction to stop cricket play on the grounds.
Decision:
An argument had been made by Counsel for Mr Jackson that there was a defence against the torts of negligence and nuisance, as Mr and Mrs Miller had “come to the nuisance.”
However, this defence was dismissed due to a previous ruling having established that coming to a nuisance was no defence (Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D. 852).[2]
The case of Sturges v Bridgman continues to be a positive judicial consideration.
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane and Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce were both of the opinion that Mr Jackson and the cricket club were guilty of nuisance every time a cricket ball broke the boundary line, and guilty of negligence due to knowing the risk of potential injury every time a cricket ball came over the fence, and allowing that to continue.
Lord Denning was the dissenting opinion and held that the cricket club had better rights due to having played cricket there for 70 years prior to the housing development. He also made comment on the proximity of the housing development and that the responsibility of this rested with the property developers, not the cricket club.
In relation to the remedy, Lord Denning and Lord Justice Cuming-Bruce agreed that the boundaries between negligence and nuisance were blurred in this instance, and difficult to distinguish separately. It is of their opinion that allowing an injunction would result in the demise of the cricket club.
They did, however, acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between the cricket club and Mr and Mrs Miller, and as such, because of the service to the local community by the cricket club, the offer of paying for the repair of damages by the cricket club was deemed adequate, with the amount awarded to Mr and Mrs Miller, increased to £400 to cover future instances.
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane (1977a) was the dissenting opinion to the remedy and stated that Mr and Mrs Miller should not have to live with the constant knowledge that they and their property were at risk of injury and/or damage during the summer months and therefore would grant the injunction.
What happened next?
This case did not change the law.
What it did do, was go on to provide more flexibility in relation to the granting or denying of an injunction as a remedy for the torts of negligence and nuisance, rather than an award of damages, which was more typical.
As to the disputing neighbours, not long after the Court of Appeal judgment, Mr and Mrs Miller sold the property and moved to a different area.
References:
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane (1977a) Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966. Available at the following URLs (Accessed 09/12/2024):
Westlaw (account required)
https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I2F64677035A411EBA4D0E6EA91C4D33D/View/FullText.html?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=5171b51266ac4c4990716168174690d9&contextData=(sc.Search)&comp=wluk
LexisLaw (account required)
https://plus.lexis.com/uk/cases-uk/miller-and-another-v-jackson-and-others-1975/?crid=56b3b8a3-3a2b-4b8e-9100-e217997f0de9&pdiskwicview=false
Bailii
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html
Citations:
[1] Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966
[2] Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D. 852