Tasknotes court cases5/6/2023 643 where the defendants had done everything reasonable to prevent injury. On the matter of negligence, Geoffrey Lane L.J. An injunction could only be sought were the defendants were guilty of nuisance which was not the case. 852 as old law and not applicable to this case. For the injunction to be appropriate remedy, the defendants must be guilty of nuisance. 880, 903 to nuisance in this case finding that the playing of cricket is the most reasonable use of the land and cannot be considered nuisance when it was not a nuisance before the houses were built. Lord Denning considered this to be a new case and applied Sedleigh-Denfield v. Have the defendants taken reasonable care for the safety of their neighbour? An issue to be decided is whether, even though the appellants extended the fence from 6 ft to 14 ft, balls will still go over the fence into the garden of the respondents, impacting the ability for the respondents to enjoy their land. The Court also needed to consider whether the injunction to stop the cricket club playing cricket was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal needed to consider whether the cricket club is guilty of negligence by not reasonably avoiding harm of their neighbour and having cricket balls go into the garden of their neighbour and/or nuisance by not allowing their neighbour to enjoy their land while cricket is being played. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL/ISSUES TO BE DECIDED The defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeal. An injunction was also granted to stop cricket being played. The judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded damages of £174.14 – £24.14 special damages and £150 being £30 per year for five years for personal inconvenience and interference with the enjoyment of the plaintiff’s home. The original case was heard in the High Court of Justice, Nottingham by Judge Trevor Reeve. There was not, at the date of hearing the case, a situation of personal injury caused by the cricket balls going over the fence and into the gardens of the adjoining land. The cricket club extended the fence from 6 ft to just less than 15ft and one ball has gone over the fence into the garden of the respondents since that time. Although remedy was offered by the appellants in the way of louvered shutters and unbreakable glass windows, this was not accepted by the respondents. The act of playing cricket is causing nuisance in the new development, while the neighbours attempt to enjoy their land. Since the houses were built, thirteen cricket balls have travelled over the fence into the gardens of the housing development occupants. The adjoining land was sold for development – a housing development. The enjoyment of the land, by the cricket club, has been in place for a period of 70 years. The land is leased to a cricket club, by the owners, for the purpose of playing cricket. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsAppĬourt of Appeal – three Lords Justice, Lord Justice Denning as Master of the Rolls (M.R.), Lord Justices Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |