Search results
Law Case Summary. Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852. Nuisance – Private Nuisance – Use of Land – Character of Locality. Facts. The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within.
Brief Fact Summary. For thirty years, a maker of confections conducted business in a property that use two large mortars that made a substantial amount of noise when operating. A physician, who previously had a garden in the area directly behind the mortar, decided to convert the garden into a consultation room.
Jan 22, 2024 · On January 22, 2024 a Complaint w/Jury Demand (Related Document) - Plaintiffs Complaint and Jury Demand was filed involving a dispute between 436 And 503 Llc, David B Jay Revocable Trust Agreement, David Jay, Ryan Jay, and All Elements Fund I, Fafo Holdings Llc, Mark Savage, Sturges Karban, Thorin Resources, for Declaratory Judgment ...
Apr 11, 2017 · The claimant built a consultation room in his new residence but complained of noise caused by the heavy machinery in adjoining house which was a biscuit factory and had been operating in the location for over 20 years. The claimant brought a case for a nuisance.
Get Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch.D. 852 (1879), High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, United Kingdom, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today.
Court of Appeal. Citations: (1879) 11 Ch D 852; (1879) 43 JP 716; (1879) 48 LJ Ch 785; (1879) 41 LT 219. Facts. The defendant was a confectioner whose premises neighboured the claimant’s home. The defendant used a noisy pestle and mortar from around 10am to around 1pm each day.
There was no easement by prescription as C had neither consented nor acquiesced to the noise since he had no knowledge of it. It is argued that allowing C to succeed in his claim would mean that a person can build a private residence in an industrial area and prevent trade from being carried out.
