“Cricket club's right to play trumps homeowners' nuisance claims”
The Millers bought a house next to a cricket ground that had operated since 1905. Cricket balls regularly landed in their garden during matches, causing damage and preventing normal use of their property. They sought an injunction to stop cricket being played and damages for nuisance.
Whether the cricket club's activities constituted a nuisance and if so, whether an injunction should be granted or damages awarded instead.
The Court of Appeal held that while the cricket club's activities did constitute a nuisance, an injunction would not be granted. Damages were awarded instead as the appropriate remedy.
This case established key principles for discretionary remedies in nuisance cases and the balancing of private rights against community interests. It remains influential in determining when courts will refuse injunctions despite finding liability.
You're reading the free summary of Miller v Jackson. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.