Sturges v Bridgman - Detailed case brief Torts: Nuisance PDF

Preview

Summary

Detailed case brief
Torts: Nuisance...

Description

Sturgess v Bridgeman Case Name: Area of law concerned:

Nuisance- first right

Court:

Court of Appeal, England

Date:

1879

Judge:

Jessel MR

Counsel: Summary of Facts:

Plaintiff was a doctor. He lived beside a confectionery kitchen, owned by the defendant. The defendant had two large marble mortars built against the wall, used for purposes of the kitchen. The plaintiff built a consulting room at the end of his garden, against the wall. The noise and vibration caused by the machinery interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to work in his consulting room. Defendant’s business had been there for over 60 years without being a nuisance to anyone. The defendant also pointed out that if the plaintiff had built his consulting room with a separate wall, he would not have suffered from the effects of the nuisance.

Relief sought: Issues:

Class Issue statement: Material Facts:



Procedural History: Defendant’s arguments: Plaintiff’s arguments: Result:

Injunction against the defendant.

Judge’s reasoning:

Jessel MR: There is really no dispute as to this being a nuisance; in fact, the evidence is all one way, and has been often said in these cases, the plaintiff is not bound to go on bringing actions for damages every day, when he is entitled to an injunction. Finds for the plaintiff, with remedy of injunction.

The actionable nuisance began when the plaintiff did what he had a right to do, namely, build a consulting room in his garden, and when, on attempting to use the consulting room for a proper purpose, he found this noise too great for anything like comfort. Doesn’t matter that the confectionery had been operating before without causing a nuisance.

You must have regard to the position of the property and all surrounding circumstances… the fact that the man has made a noise which has not injured me or interfered with my comfort or enjoyment in any way, cannot deprive me of my right to the land, or interfere with my right to come to the Court when it does seriously interfere with my

comfortable enjoyment… Just because it wasn’t a nuisance before, doesn’t mean it can’t be a nuisance now.

Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction, but delayed, due to it being the height of the London season. Reasonable time to alter position of mortars. Thesiger LJ (Court of Appeal) Whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances. Nuisance is contextual.

It would be on the one hand in a very high degree unreasonable and undesirable that there should be a right of action for acts which are not in the present condition of the adjoining land, and possibly never will be any annoyance or inconvenience to either its owner or occupier; and it would be on the other hand an equally degree unjust, and, from a public point of view, inexpedient that the use and value of the adjoining land should, for all time and under all circumstances, be restricted and diminished by reason of the continuance of acts incapable of physical interruption, and which the law gives no power to prevent. Further proof that judges are useless at writing- look at all those commas and that is a one hundred and twelve word sentence. This passage captures the conflicting interests of this case, and states that neither party has an absolute right to prevent or continue a specific act. It depends on the circumstances around the act.

What can be learned from this case....