Sturges v Bridgman
It is no defence to a claim in nuisance that the claimant came to the nuisance, and what is a nuisance depends on the character of the neighbourhood.
Facts
Mr Bridgman, a confectioner, had used heavy pestles and mortars in his kitchen, at the back of his premises in Wigmore Street, for more than 20 years. Dr Sturges, a physician, built a consulting room in his garden, next to the confectioner's kitchen. He then found that the noise and vibration from the pestles and mortars made it impossible to use the room. He sued for an injunction. Mr Bridgman argued that he had acquired a right to make the noise by prescription.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Dr Sturges was entitled to an injunction. The confectioner had not acquired a prescriptive right, because the noise had not been a nuisance until the consulting room was built, so time could not run. It was no defence that the claimant came to the nuisance. Thesiger LJ said that whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances, and that what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
