Sturges vs Bridgman
Reference : [1879] 11 Ch D 852
Jurisdiction : England and Wales
Plaintiff : Sturges
Defendant : Bridgman
Facts :
The plaintiff, a doctor, moved into a house on Wimpole Street adjacent to the defendant’s confectionary. The defendant had owned and operated the confectionery for over twenty years. A garden was located at the rear of the plaintiff’s property, and its wall shared a boundary with the defendant’s kitchen. After moving to this home, the plaintiff renovated the garden into a small consulting room for private practice, retaining the same boundary wall. The defendant used two large mortars in his kitchen to pound ingredients for making sweets. These mortars and pestles generated loud noises that disrupted the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of his property and interfered with his use of the consulting room.
Consequently, the plaintiff alleged that the noise constituted a nuisance. However, the defendant denied this claim, arguing that he had been using the confectionery for over twenty years and that the plaintiff had willfully “come to the nuisance” which established the defendant’s entitlement to continue his business. The confectioner insisted that any fault belonged to the plaintiff, not him.
Issues :
1. Can the defendant claim a “prescriptive right” to create the noise due to continuous use for over twenty years?
2. Does the defence of “coming to the nuisance” invalidate the plaintiff’s claim?
Decisions :
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and granted an injunction against the defendant to stop the pestle and mortar.
The Court of Appeal held that the fact that the plaintiff “came to the nuisance” was no defence. Thesiger LJ stated that the confectioner could not claim a legal right for the nuisance that he had caused just because it had been happening for a long time without complaints. ‘The Prescription Rule’ couldn’t be used as a defence in this case because to apply this rule, the plaintiff must give his consent to the nuisance. But the doctor did not give his consent to continue the noise. Moreover, “coming to the nuisance” is not a defence that can be used, therefore the defendant couldn’t apply this to defend himself.
Additionally, nuisance highly depends on the locality. What might be a nuisance in Belgrave Square (a private residential area in London where not everyone has access to enter) may not be considered one in Bermondsey (a busy industrial area of converted warehouses in London). In this case, the noise was considered a nuisance according to the locality.
The Court therefore ruled in favor of the plaintiff and protected the right of him to continue his practice without any unnecessary disturbances.
The Prescription Rule :
This principle establishes property rights through consistent use over time. It is a defence in private nuisance where the thing complained of had been active for 20 years or more and the claimant was aware of it but had not complained before. This allows a person to acquire legal rights if he has consistently engaged in an activity for at least 20 years and once gained, the prescription rule entitles the individual to continue the action in future.
Author :
1. Nusiba Hasan Ohee
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
