“Cricket club liable in nuisance, but injunction refused to save village cricket”
The Court of Appeal held that the interference was an actionable private nuisance and that the defendants were liable. By a majority, however, the court declined to grant an injunction and awarded damages instead, allowing cricket to continue subject to compensation. The claimant’s move next to an existing cricket ground did not bar the nuisance claim.
A house was built next to a long-established village cricket ground, and cricket balls were frequently struck over the boundary into the claimant’s garden, sometimes causing damage and creating a risk of personal injury. The claimant sought relief in nuisance and negligence against the cricket club and associated defendants. The cricket ground had been used for many years before the house was occupied, but the frequency of the balls leaving the ground had increased over time.
Whether the repeated hitting of cricket balls into the claimant’s land amounted to private nuisance and/or negligence; whether the long-standing presence of the cricket ground or the claimant's arrival to the nuisance provided a defence; and whether, if liability was established, the appropriate remedy was an injunction or damages in lieu.
The court treated the persistent projection of cricket balls onto neighbouring land as a substantial and unreasonable interference with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the claimant’s property. The fact that cricket was socially valuable and that the ground had long existed did not negate nuisance, since there is no general defence of 'coming to the nuisance'. On remedy, the majority considered that an injunction would be disproportionate because it would effectively destroy a valued local amenity, so damages were the more appropriate response.
This case is a leading authority on private nuisance, especially for the principles that repeated physical intrusion can be actionable and that 'coming to the nuisance' is generally no defence. It is also important on remedies because it illustrates the court’s equitable discretion to refuse an injunction and award damages instead.
Lord Denning MR made notable observations stressing the social utility of village cricket and suggesting that the law should be slow to grant injunctions that would end long-enjoyed communal activities, even where nuisance is technically established.
OSCOLA Citation
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWHC 1095 (KB)
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.