Miller v. Jackson
Encyclopedia
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 is a famous Court of Appeal case in the tort
s of negligence
and nuisance
. The court considered whether the defendant - the chairman of a local cricket club, on behalf of its members - was liable in nuisance or negligence when cricket ball
s were hit over the boundary
and onto the property of their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Miller, the plaintiffs.
, near Burnopfield
, County Durham
, since 1905, on land leased to the club by the National Coal Board
. The National Coal Board also owned a field adjacent to the ground, which it sold to Stanley Urban District Council. The Council sold the land to Wimpey for development. A line of new semi-detached
houses were built next to the ground in 1972, one of which, 20, Brackenridge, was bought by the Millers.
The Millers' garden boundary was only 100 feet (30.5 m) from the nearest batting crease, and their house only 60 feet (18.3 m) further away. Several cricket balls were hit onto their property over the following years, causing minor damage to their house (chipped paintwork, broken roof tiles) and risking personal injury to the Millers.
Despite measures taken by the club to minimise recurrences, including the erection of a 8 in 9 in (2.67 m) high fence in March 1975 on top of a 6 feet (1.8 m) boundary wall and asking batsmen to try to hit fours rather than sixes, a few balls continued to be hit out of the ground each season. For example, in 1975, 36 matches were played over 20 weeks in the summer, with 2,221 six-ball overs
being bowled
. Out of the 13,326 legitimate deliveries
(ignoring no-balls and wides) there were 120 sixes, of which six crossed the fence and fell into the housing estate.
The club offered to meet the cost of any property damage (£400), and suggested further countermeasures, such as louvred
window shutter
s, and a net over the Millers' garden. The Millers were not content and sue
d for damages
and an injunction
to prevent cricket being played on the ground.
The case is well-known for the lyrical opening to Lord Denning's judgment, the first paragraph of which reads:
heard the case at first instance in the High Court
in Nottingham
. He delivered his judgment on 3 December 1976, granting the Millers the injunction they sought, and ordering the club to pay general damages of £
150 for negligence and nuisance, for the inconvenience and interference with the use of the Millers' property.
The defendants appealed against the injunction, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed for an increase in the award of damages. Michael Kempster QC
and James N. Harper appeared as counsel
for the club; James Chadwin
QC and Frederick Such as counsel for the Millers at a two-day hearing on 31 March and 1 April 1977.
LJJ
held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs". The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR
dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest". However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".
Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretion
ary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons". The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.
It is notable that the court did not hold that holding cricket matches on the ground was negligent, per se; rather, there were separate negligent acts each time a ball left the ground. It is not clear why attempting to hit a ball for six should be negligent, since it is one of the objects of playing cricket.
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
s of negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
and nuisance
Nuisance
Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F...
. The court considered whether the defendant - the chairman of a local cricket club, on behalf of its members - was liable in nuisance or negligence when cricket ball
Cricket ball
A cricket ball is a hard, solid leather ball used to play cricket. Constructed of cork and leather, a cricket ball is heavily regulated by cricket law at first class level...
s were hit over the boundary
Boundary (cricket)
Boundary has two distinct meanings in the sport of cricket:# the edge or boundary of the playing field, and# a manner of scoring runs.-Edge of the field:...
and onto the property of their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Miller, the plaintiffs.
Facts
Cricket had been played at a small cricket ground in LintzLintz
Lintz is a small village in County Durham, in England. It is situated immediately to the south-west of Burnopfield.The famous court case, Miller v. Jackson, arose from cricket played by Lintz Cricket Club in the village....
, near Burnopfield
Burnopfield
Burnopfield is a village in County Durham, in England. It is situated north of Stanley, close to the River Derwent and is 564 feet above sea level.A village with local school, churches and newsagents...
, County Durham
County Durham
County Durham is a ceremonial county and unitary district in north east England. The county town is Durham. The largest settlement in the ceremonial county is the town of Darlington...
, since 1905, on land leased to the club by the National Coal Board
National Coal Board
The National Coal Board was the statutory corporation created to run the nationalised coal mining industry in the United Kingdom. Set up under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, it took over the mines on "vesting day", 1 January 1947...
. The National Coal Board also owned a field adjacent to the ground, which it sold to Stanley Urban District Council. The Council sold the land to Wimpey for development. A line of new semi-detached
Semi-detached
Semi-detached housing consists of pairs of houses built side by side as units sharing a party wall and usually in such a way that each house's layout is a mirror image of its twin...
houses were built next to the ground in 1972, one of which, 20, Brackenridge, was bought by the Millers.
The Millers' garden boundary was only 100 feet (30.5 m) from the nearest batting crease, and their house only 60 feet (18.3 m) further away. Several cricket balls were hit onto their property over the following years, causing minor damage to their house (chipped paintwork, broken roof tiles) and risking personal injury to the Millers.
Despite measures taken by the club to minimise recurrences, including the erection of a 8 in 9 in (2.67 m) high fence in March 1975 on top of a 6 feet (1.8 m) boundary wall and asking batsmen to try to hit fours rather than sixes, a few balls continued to be hit out of the ground each season. For example, in 1975, 36 matches were played over 20 weeks in the summer, with 2,221 six-ball overs
Over (cricket)
In the sport of cricket, an over is a set of six consecutive balls bowled in succession. An over is normally bowled by a single bowler. However, in the event of injury preventing a bowler from completing an over, it is completed by a teammate....
being bowled
Bowling (cricket)
In the sport of cricket, bowling is the action of propelling the ball toward the wicket defended by a batsman. A player skilled at bowling is called a bowler; a bowler who is also a competent batsman is known as an all-rounder...
. Out of the 13,326 legitimate deliveries
Delivery (cricket)
A delivery or ball in cricket is a single action of bowling a cricket ball towards the batsman.During play of the game, a member of the fielding team is designated as the bowler, and bowls deliveries towards the batsman...
(ignoring no-balls and wides) there were 120 sixes, of which six crossed the fence and fell into the housing estate.
The club offered to meet the cost of any property damage (£400), and suggested further countermeasures, such as louvred
Louver
A louver or louvre , from the French l'ouvert; "the open one") is a window, blind or shutter with horizontal slats that are angled to admit light and air, but to keep out rain, direct sunshine, and noise...
window shutter
Window shutter
A window shutter is a solid and stable window covering usually consisting of a frame of vertical stiles and horizontal rails...
s, and a net over the Millers' garden. The Millers were not content and sue
Lawsuit
A lawsuit or "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint...
d for damages
Damages
In law, damages is an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury; grammatically, it is a singular noun, not plural.- Compensatory damages :...
and an injunction
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
to prevent cricket being played on the ground.
The case is well-known for the lyrical opening to Lord Denning's judgment, the first paragraph of which reads:
In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.
High Court
Reeve J.Judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open...
heard the case at first instance in the High Court
High Court of Justice
The High Court of Justice is, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, one of the Senior Courts of England and Wales...
in Nottingham
Nottingham
Nottingham is a city and unitary authority in the East Midlands of England. It is located in the ceremonial county of Nottinghamshire and represents one of eight members of the English Core Cities Group...
. He delivered his judgment on 3 December 1976, granting the Millers the injunction they sought, and ordering the club to pay general damages of £
Pound sterling
The pound sterling , commonly called the pound, is the official currency of the United Kingdom, its Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory and Tristan da Cunha. It is subdivided into 100 pence...
150 for negligence and nuisance, for the inconvenience and interference with the use of the Millers' property.
The defendants appealed against the injunction, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed for an increase in the award of damages. Michael Kempster QC
Queen's Counsel
Queen's Counsel , known as King's Counsel during the reign of a male sovereign, are lawyers appointed by letters patent to be one of Her [or His] Majesty's Counsel learned in the law...
and James N. Harper appeared as counsel
Counsel
A counsel or a counselor gives advice, more particularly in legal matters.-U.K. and Ireland:The legal system in England uses the term counsel as an approximate synonym for a barrister-at-law, and may apply it to mean either a single person who pleads a cause, or collectively, the body of barristers...
for the club; James Chadwin
James Chadwin
James Armstrong Chadwin QC was a prominent British barrister, whose cases included defending Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper"....
QC and Frederick Such as counsel for the Millers at a two-day hearing on 31 March and 1 April 1977.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-BruceRoualeyn Cumming-Bruce
Sir James Roualeyn Hovell-Thurlow-Cumming-Bruce PC was a British barrister and judge who was a Lord Justice of Appeal from 1977-1985....
LJJ
Lord Justice of Appeal
A Lord Justice of Appeal is an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the court that hears appeals from the High Court of Justice, and represents the second highest level of judge in the courts of England and Wales-Appointment:...
held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs". The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR
Master of the Rolls
The Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England, known as the Master of the Rolls, is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after the Lord Chief Justice. The Master of the Rolls is the presiding officer of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal...
dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest". However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".
Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretion
Discretion
Discretion is a noun in the English language with several meanings revolving around the judgment of the person exercising the characteristic.-Meanings:*"The Art of suiting action to particular circumstances"...
ary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons". The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.
It is notable that the court did not hold that holding cricket matches on the ground was negligent, per se; rather, there were separate negligent acts each time a ball left the ground. It is not clear why attempting to hit a ball for six should be negligent, since it is one of the objects of playing cricket.
See also
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078, in which the House of LordsHouse of LordsThe House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
considered negligence in another cricket case