Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jackson (1977)
Court England and Wales court of Appeal
Lord Denning
Issue(s) Should the cricket club be allowed to continue playing cricket on the field?
- Is use of ground for playing cricket reasonable?
Rule(s): X – 19th century law would count ball as trespassing for individual and club.
X - Sturges v. Bridgman (1879)[chancery division 852] set precedent of nuisance
claim with physician who stopped working of kitchen because it was noisy to his
waiting room
- Public interest should prevail over private interest.
Analysis - Use of ground for playing cricket is reasonable as it has been so for 70
years, and most villages have cricket clubs and fields. Further, that one
chose to build a house adjacent to the field does not itself make the
field a nuisance
- Sturges V. Bridgman does not apply because property laws now must be
weighed against public interest [Right of club to play]. Should weigh
public right to play v. right of individual to sit in garden undisturbed
- Risk of stray balls was very predictable, measures can be taken to avoid
being in garden while cricket played. Could sell house
- Ultimately public interest > private interest
Holding: - Public interest in the form of right to play ball should prevail over
private interest of individual to build a home next to field and sit in
garden undisturbed. Appeal allowed.