Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966

Facts

  • Lintz Cricket Club had played cricket on the same field for about 70 years.
  • New residential houses were built adjacent to the cricket ground; Mrs. Miller purchased one of these homes.
  • After Mrs. Miller moved in, cricket balls frequently landed in her garden, causing property damage.
  • The cricket club installed a chain-link fence to mitigate the risk, but balls continued to enter her property.
  • The club offered compensation for damage, but Mrs. Miller sought an injunction to stop cricket matches.
  • The dispute centered on the conflict between Mrs. Miller's right to enjoy her property and the community’s interest in recreational cricket.

Issues

  1. Whether repeated incursions of cricket balls constituted an actionable nuisance and/or negligence.
  2. Whether Mrs. Miller’s claim was defeated by the fact that the cricket club’s activities pre-dated her residence (“coming to the nuisance”).
  3. Whether an injunction or damages was the appropriate remedy, particularly in light of the public interest in the club’s activities.
  4. The relevance and weight of public interest in determining remedies for nuisance.

Decision

  • The court found the cricket club liable for both nuisance and negligence.
  • It was held that the club’s repeated intrusion onto Mrs. Miller’s land constituted an unreasonable interference irrespective of the fact she had moved near the cricket ground.
  • The defence of “coming to the nuisance” was rejected; prior existence of the activity did not preclude finding nuisance.
  • The majority refused to grant an injunction, instead awarding damages. The social value of the cricket club and the public interest in recreational activities were deemed sufficient reasons to deny injunctive relief.
  • Dissenting, Geoffrey Lane LJ would have granted an injunction, concluding damages were not adequate for the ongoing harm suffered.

Legal Principles

  • Repeated physical interferences with land can amount to actionable nuisance.
  • Negligence may be found where a defendant fails to take adequate precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.
  • The doctrine that “coming to the nuisance” is not a defence was reaffirmed, consistent with Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852.
  • Courts possess discretion to grant damages instead of injunctions, moving beyond the traditional presumption in favor of injunctive relief where public interest or policy considerations are significant.
  • The judgment established that public interest may justify denying an injunction even where nuisance is established.

Conclusion

Miller v Jackson confirmed no defence of “coming to the nuisance” exists and recognized courts’ expanded discretion to award damages instead of injunctions in nuisance cases where the public interest is engaged, thereby balancing private property rights with broader community benefit.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal