Miller v Jackson ELS Tutorial 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Tutorial notes breakdown of miller v jackson​...

Description

Miller v Jackson ELS – TUTORIAL 3 1. Who were the plaintiffs? (Today they would be called claimants.) Mr and Mrs Miller 2. Who were the defendants? Members of Village Cricket club / Jackson 3. What remedies had the plaintiffs asked for at first instance? An injuction 4. Who was the judge at first instance? Reeve J 5. What was his decision? Reeve J. awarded the plaintiffs damages for personal inconvenience and interference with their past enjoyment of their property at £30 a year for five years, and granted them the injunction in the terms asked for. 6. Which judges heard the case in the Court of Appeal? Lord Denning M.R., Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce L.JJ. 7. What were the grounds of appeal? Geoffrey Lane and Cumming – Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. 8. What was the cross appeal by the Mr and Mrs Miller? Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest".[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]

Asked for 150 towards damages 9. Were the appeals successful? Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretionary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons".[4] The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.

10. How many of the judges who heard the case as it progressed through the courts thought the defendants had been negligent? 3 11. How many of the judges who heard the case as it progressed through the courts thought that the defendants had caused a nuisance? 3 reeve Jeffery lane and cumming bruce 12. How many of the judges who heard the case as it progressed through the courts would have awarded an injunction? 2 13. What is the meaning of the following words – (i) (ii) (iii)

(iv)

Seriatim – One after the other Cur.adv.vult - abbreviation for curia advisari vult, 'the court wishes to be advised'. Sic uteree tuo ut alienum non laedas - Use your own property in such a way that you do not injure other people's: a maxim often used in cases of nuisance. It is misleading, since only an unreasonable interference with a neighbour's property is actionable as a nuisance. Res integra An entire thing; an entirely new or untouched matter. This term is applied to those pointsof law which have not been decided, which are "untouched by dictum or decision."

14. What had the defendants done and offered to do which it felt should exclude it from liability? They had offered to fit shutters and unbreakable glass at the rear of their premises. 15. Did the defendants believe they would be liable if it had not done the above? No 16. Why was the case of Sturges v Bridgman relevant? Sturges v. Bridgman showed that the fact that the Millers HAD “come to the Nuisance” was no defence. 17. What did Lord Denning say about the case of Sturges v Bridgman? 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.

18. Why did Cumming Bruce L.J. think that Reeve J came to the wrong decision re granting an injunction? 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. Not sure if Reeve had properly considered the public’s interest when making his decision. The importance of having such a summer pastime for young and old was valuable to the community. 19. What bearing did the fact that cricket was already being played at the ground when the Millers bought their house have on the outcome of the case? Quite a strong bearing as 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’s actions. Got rid of injuction, nut cricket club still liable for negligence and nuisance.

20. Which of the following statements could be said to be part of the ratio decidendi of the case? 1. (a) The defence of derogation of grant is a defence to actions in negligence and nuisance which is an established rule of law and applies equally to assignees and purchasers with and without notice. - Not necessary for this decision 2. (b) There was a real risk of damage to property and injury to people every time cricket was played on the defendants’ ground. 3. (c) The defendants’ use of their land was an unreasonable interference with their neighbours. – Does not form part of the ratio

4. (d) The plaintiffs were not under a duty to mitigate the risk of damage being done by the defendants’ cricket balls. 5. (e) It is no answer to a claim in nuisance for the defendant to show that the plaintiff brought the trouble on his own head by coming to live close to the defendant’s premises that he would inevitably be affected by the defendant’s activities, where no one had been affected previously. 6. (f) The court, in exercising its equitable jurisdiction to grant or refuse an injunction was under a duty to have regard to the public interest. 7. (g) The special circumstances were such that the greater interest of the public should prevail over the hardship to the individual householders of being deprived of the enjoyment of their house and garden while cricket was being played. – Finding of facts due to the circumstances of the case but does not form part of the ratio 21. What facts were the material facts of the case? Which of these facts were material to the issue of whether there had been negligence and nuisance? The likelihood of cricket balls damaging the defendants garden… 22. Judges are meant to give an objective summary of the facts. Give examples where you think the judges fail to take a neutral approach when relating the facts. If you were representing Mr and Mrs Miller, how might you recount the facts?



The judge accepted the female plaintiff's assessment of the dangers rather than that of other witnesses. She was neurotic on the subject and her evidence should not have been given such weight.



The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. and all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.

23. Do you notice anything about Lord Denning’s style of writing? Is it clear? His writing is strongly rhetorical, through his choice of language, he builds an image of a rural community bound together by its love of cricket, it is an idyll that is threatened by an outsider who can destroy that traditional way of life. There is also a lot of speculation, along with the facts. He mentions socially undesireable consequences that might come from the continued injuncytion: the replacement of the cricket ground with houses or a factory; the fear that young men will turn ‘to other things’ – which are clearly undesireable,. There is no evidence of all of this so why are they mentioned? 24. Two years ago the St Clement’s Golf Club, a club with 600 members, bought a strip of land which it turned into a driving range for its club professional to give lessons. Gwenda and Bill have lived in the house adjoining the driving range for 20 years. Since the driving range has been operating twenty five balls have been hit into their garden and last year one of these balls struck Gwenda, fracturing her cheek bone.

Advise Gwenda and Bill on their application for an injunction to prevent the golf club from using its driving range. Are you able to distinguish the case of Miller v Jackson? In the nuisance case of Miller V Jackson (1977), when Mr and Mrs Miller complained about the cricket balls being hit into their garden, the public interest was represented by the local community and the cricket club using the cricket field for their matched and recreation generally. In the case of Gwenda and Bill the public interest would be represented by the 600 golf club members. And like Miller v Jackson The Court of Appeal could decide in favour of the public interest and refuse the injunction to prevent the golf club from using its driving range. However, because of the personal injury to Gwenda damages could be awarded....