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.
Facts. Doctor (C) moved into a house and built a shed to carry out his private practice. C’s shed was next to a confectioner (D) and the noise of the pestle and mortar was clearly audible from his shed. C sued D in nuisance and sought an injunction.
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.
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.
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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852 is a landmark case in nuisance decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It decides that what constitutes reasonable use of one's property depends on the character of the locality and that it is no defence that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance".
STURGES v. BRIDGMAN. Law Rep., 3 Q. B. Div. 85; 4 Q. B. Div. 162; Partridge v. Scott, 3 M. & W. 220. Waller, Q. C., and S. Dickinson, for respondent. The opinion of the court was delivered by THESIGER, L. J.-It has been proved that in the use of the mortars before and at the time of action brought, a noise was caused
