Miller v Jackson [1977] Q.B. 966

A cricket club had used its ground for many years before houses were built beside it. Cricket balls repeatedly entered a neighbouring householder's property, creating danger and causing damage. The club erected a higher fence and offered further protective measures and compensation, but the householder sought an injunction. The dispute therefore involved both responsibility for the interference and the appropriate remedy if it was actionable. The social value of local cricket and the burden on the neighbouring household featured prominently in the Court of Appeal's consideration of those distinct questions.

• Was D guilty of nuisance/ negligence by batting balls into the housing estate during the course of cricket?
• Did C’s hardship in losing the use of their garden while cricket was being played outweigh the public benefit of the cricket club?

A majority concluded that the continuing interference amounted to nuisance and negligence. The fact that the club had played cricket there long before the claimant arrived did not provide a complete defence. The Court of Appeal nevertheless discharged the injunction, leaving a damages remedy; the judges' alignments on liability and remedy were not identical. Lord Denning placed particular weight on the public value of cricket and dissented on liability. The case must therefore not be reduced to his preference for the club as though all judges adopted it. It illustrates the separate equitable decision whether an injunction should issue once an actionable interference has been identified.

Coming to an existing activity does not itself defeat a nuisance claim. Even where nuisance and negligence are established, the court considers the appropriate remedy separately; in Miller, an injunction was discharged despite the majority's conclusion that the continuing interference was actionable.

Miller is valuable because liability and remedy produced different judicial alignments. Its memorable discussion of village cricket can obscure that a majority found actionable interference. Compare Bolton v Stone on the very low likelihood of a cricket ball causing injury, and modern nuisance authority on the discretion to award damages instead of an injunction. Public benefit may be relevant to remedy, but it does not generally entitle a defendant to impose substantial interference on neighbours without legal consequence.