Aussies: NSW Politicians, keeping ICAC in business

[Jeor]

The horror show that is the NSW Labor party keeps on giving...the general secretary stood down, an Aldi bag filled with 100K cash, fake bookkeeping to mask payments from overseas donors. Historically, NSW Labor has been a hotbed of dodgy deals ever since the end of the Carr premiership with guys like Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Ian McDonald, so it's hardly surprising that there's a background of all this stuff. Jodi McKay (who I don't like anyway after her sour grapes on TV election coverage) has got a big task on her hands to fix it. That being said, it wasn't that long ago that the NSW Liberal party was also a joke (in the pre-Barry O'Farrell days) so I guess this comes around in cycles.

I see Kevin Rudd has come out of the woodwork and seems to be in the publicity all over again.

[The Anti-Targ]

Quote

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/115499367/australian-vegan-takes-her-neighbours-to-court-over-bbq-smell

Australian vegan takes her neighbours to court over BBQ smell

Interesting. If you take the obvious sensationalism of the headline out of it and just think of it in terms of intrusive smells and noises, there are grounds for people to seek changes of what neighbours can do on the basis of objectionable odours and unreasonable noise.

Who gets to decide what's an objectionable odour and excessive noise? It's certainly one reason you can't have a pig sty on a suburban property and in a lot of suburbs you can't keep a rooster.

Kids playing basketball seems a bit mean. Social "norms" suggest BBQ smells are typically not objectionable. But fish can be rather overpoweringly whiffy. Cigarette waft? I hate cigarettes, but telling someone they can't smoke in their own back yard is a bit much. Still all of her complaints have some basis in bylaws and regulations.

[Jeor]

The problem with those sorts of cases is that they can only really be based on social norms, which are always changing. What is socially acceptable is always a moving target so I don't know how courts can determine precedence based on standards that keep changing (I'm sure @Stubby would have some wisdom for us on that one). One would say BBQ smells, kids playing basketball etc are acceptable now but in 50 years' time maybe meat eating will be seen as a terrible thing.

That being said, I suppose another layer of acceptability could be the timing of these things. Kids playing basketball loudly at 2am in the morning would probably not be acceptable whereas kids playing basketball after coming home from school around 4pm would be fine.
 

[Paxter]

13 hours ago, Jeor said:

The problem with those sorts of cases is that they can only really be based on social norms, which are always changing. What is socially acceptable is always a moving target so I don't know how courts can determine precedence based on standards that keep changing (I'm sure @Stubby would have some wisdom for us on that one). One would say BBQ smells, kids playing basketball etc are acceptable now but in 50 years' time maybe meat eating will be seen as a terrible thing.

My memory is that if you "come to a nuisance" it is much harder to get a remedy. In other words, even if social norms are changing, you won't be successful in displacing "the way things are around here."

Lord Denning said it best in Miller v Jackson:

Quote

Just consider the circumstances. For over 70 years the game of cricket has been played on this ground to the great benefit of the community as a whole, and to the injury of none. No one could suggest that it was a nuisance to the neighbouring owners simply because an enthusiastic batsman occasionally hit a ball out of the ground for six to the approval of the admiring onlookers.

Then I would ask: Does it suddenly become a nuisance because one of the neighbours chooses to build a house on the very edge of the ground - in such a position that it may well be struck by the ball on the rare occasion when there is a hit for six? To my mind the answer is plainly No. The building of the house does not convert the playing of cricket into a nuisance when it was not so before.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

I dunno if the cricket precedent is entirely appropriate here. The person building the house will surely know that cricket is played on the field, but chose to build the house in a position where it might get hit by the occasional cricket ball.

Was this lady meant to inquire as to the culinary and sporting habits of her neighbours before deciding to take up residence as a neighbour? How much should you be reasonably be expected to find out about the neighbour's habits before deciding to move in?

It doesn't end with BBQ smells of course. There are other normal activities that can lead to objectionable smells. Composting is one. Something we are all encouraged to do, but it can get very whiffy and people wouldn't be unreasonable to complain if compost smells were wafting across your back yard while you are trying to be out there enjoying your little bit of nature.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Note that Denning was just being Denning there. The precedent (a nineteenth century one) involved someone moving next door to a dentist, and successfully suing the dentist for noise nuisance, even though the dentist was there first (the noise being the drill). Denning just decided to ignore the precedent in Miller v. Jackson because he liked cricket.

In short, Lord Denning wiped his posterior with precedent. Using him as precedent? Problematic.

[Free Northman Reborn]

That’s why like should generally stick with like. Move to an area where your lifestyle is likely to be the dominant one. Being a minority is shit, so try not to be one at a local level. If BBQ’s are a local cultural norm, move to a vegan dominated community where it is not.

Each to his own, in the end. Don’t try and tell others how to live their lives.

[Paxter]

7 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Note that Denning was just being Denning there. The precedent (a nineteenth century one) involved someone moving next door to a dentist, and successfully suing the dentist for noise nuisance, even though the dentist was there first (the noise being the drill). Denning just decided to ignore the precedent in Miller v. Jackson because he liked cricket.

My hero!

[HexMachina]

The more appropriate precedent for smell would be Barr v Biffa Waste I think. Coventry v Lawrence should also offer some insight (English cases obviously but helpful all the same).

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That’s why like should generally stick with like. Move to an area where your lifestyle is likely to be the dominant one. Being a minority is shit, so try not to be one at a local level. If BBQ’s are a local cultural norm, move to a vegan dominated community where it is not.

Each to his own, in the end. Don’t try and tell others how to live their lives.

You’ve said some dumb shit in your time but this takes the biscuit

[Squab]

Vegans are sure to be impressed with this lawsuit and the coverage its getting. With the start of spring and us coming into BBQing season, this kind of coverage is sure to endear vegans even further throughout backyards across the country. I admire the chutzpah of any judge that tries to start banning BBQs in Australian backyards. I can hear Sam Kekovich already.

The Victorian government has joined Tas, SA, NT and ACT in allowing self identification of sex on birth certificates. I hope there will be pressure on the remaining states to follow suit. Not to mention bringing the law into line with current cultural norms, I know in Queensland the ALP government is desperately looking for a distraction to take the spotlight off the deputy premier who i think has her days numbered. I figure it will also be welcomed in NSW by those wishing to do STEM courses at the University of Technology Sydney. Women applying for these courses (traditionally dominated by men) will be awarded additional points to their Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR).

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess a somewhat predictable reaction.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/09/vegan-who-took-neighbours-to-court-threatens-legal-action-for-meat-eaters-protest.html

Quote

Media coverage of the case has now led to Carden needing to employ lawyers again after pro-meat eaters set up an event to barbecue outside her home.

More than 4000 people have clicked "attending" to the Facebook event "Community BBQ for Cilla Carden", which prohibits vegans from attending.

I guess this was never going to end well once it got into the news media.

12 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Note that Denning was just being Denning there. The precedent (a nineteenth century one) involved someone moving next door to a dentist, and successfully suing the dentist for noise nuisance, even though the dentist was there first (the noise being the drill). Denning just decided to ignore the precedent in Miller v. Jackson because he liked cricket.

In short, Lord Denning wiped his posterior with precedent. Using him as precedent? Problematic.

Dunno if I entirely agree. Dentists who have not soundproofed their torture rooms probably should not be doing their business in a residential area. And soundproofing is a potential remedy that does not force the Dentist to relocate, and would not be prohibitively expensive. You can't force people playing cricket to not hit 6's, so the only solution to the plaintiff being successful is to relocate. Also the risk of the actual nuisance occurring on any day is low on days when cricket is being played, and zero on every other day. The occurrence of nuisance in the dentist case is certain on at least 5 days a week for, cumulatively, several hours a day. It's not unreasonable to ignore the dentist precedent in this situation as it would not seem to serve natural justice to find in favour of the plaintiff.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The more appropriate precedent for smell would be Barr v Biffa Waste I think. Coventry v Lawrence should also offer some insight (English cases obviously but helpful all the same).

You’ve said some dumb shit in your time but this takes the biscuit

Quite logical. Wherever one’s way of life does not represent that of the majority position, you will have more difficulty in fully realising that way of life.

Being a vegan in a neighbourhood where people like their BBQ’s is a good example. I see a facebook campaign has now been started to organize a mass BBQ in front of her house, which she is trying to block through legal means.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Dunno if I entirely agree. Dentists who have not soundproofed their torture rooms probably should not be doing their business in a residential area. And soundproofing is a potential remedy that does not force the Dentist to relocate, and would not be prohibitively expensive. You can't force people playing cricket to not hit 6's, so the only solution to the plaintiff being successful is to relocate. Also the risk of the actual nuisance occurring on any day is low on days when cricket is being played, and zero on every other day. The occurrence of nuisance in the dentist case is certain on at least 5 days a week for, cumulatively, several hours a day. It's not unreasonable to ignore the dentist precedent in this situation as it would not seem to serve natural justice to find in favour of the plaintiff.

It was a nineteenth century Dentist. I'm not sure how effective soundproofing was back then. In any case, Denning's reasoning was that cricket is inherently a benefit to society, and that that should trump the discomfort of the individual complainant. Here's his full decision...

***

 In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore, lie has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.

 

I must say that I am surprised that the developers of the housing estate were allowed to build the houses so close to the cricket ground. No doubt they wanted to make the most of their site and put up as many houses as they could for their own profit. The planning authorities ought not to have allowed it. The houses ought to have been so sited as not to interfere with the cricket. But the houses have been built and we have to reckon with the consequences.

 

At the time when the houses were built it was obvious to the people of Lintz that these new houses were built too close to the cricket ground. It was a small ground, and there might be trouble when a batsman hit a ball out of the ground. But there was no trouble in finding purchasers. Some of them may have been cricket enthusiasts. But others were not. In the first three years - 1972, 1973 and 1974 - quite a number of balls came over or under the boundary fence and went into the gardens of the houses: and the cricketers went round to get them. A lady in one of the houses, a Mrs. Miller, of house number 20, Brackenridge, was very annoyed about this. To use her own words:

 

"...When the balls come over, they the cricketers, either ring or come round in two's and three's and ask if they can have the ball back, and they never ask properly. They just ask if they can have the ball back, and that's it. They have been very rude, very arrogant and very ignorant, and very deceitful ... to get away from any problems we make a point of going out on Wednesdays, Fridays and the week-ends."

 

Having read the evidence, I am sure that was a most unfair complaint to make of the cricketers. They have done their very best to be polite. It must be admitted, however, that on a few occasions before 1974 a tile was broken or a window smashed.

 

The householders made the most of this and got their rates reduced. The cricket club then did everything possible to see that no balls went over. In 1975, before the cricket season opened, they put up a very high protective fence. The existing concrete fence was only six feet high. They raised it to nearly 15 feet high by a galvanised chain-link fence. It cost £700. They could not raise it any higher because of the wind. The cricket ground is 570 feet above sea level. During the winter even this high fence was blown down on one occasion and had to be repaired at a cost of £400. Not only did the club put up this high protective fence. They told the batsmen to try to drive the balls low for four and not hit them up for six. This greatly reduced the number of balls that got into the gardens. So much so that the rating authority no longer allowed any reduction in rates.

 

Despite these measures, a few balls did get over. The club made a tally of all the sixes hit during the seasons of 1975 and 1976. In 1975 there were 2,221 overs, that is, 13,326 balls bowled. Of them there were 120 six hits on all sides of the ground. Of these only six went over the high protective fence and into this housing estate. In 1976 there were 2,616 overs, that is 15,696 balls. Of them there were 160 six hits. Of these only 9 went over the high protective fence and into this housing estate.

 

No one has been hurt at all by any of these balls, either before or after the high fence was erected. There has, however, been some damage to property, even since the high fence was erected. The cricket club have offered to remedy all the damage and pay all expenses. They have offered to supply and fit unbreakable glass in the windows, and shutters or safeguards for them. They have offered to supply and fit a safety net over the garden whenever cricket is being played. In short, they have done everything possible snort of stopping playing cricket on the ground at all. But Mrs. Miller and her husband have remained unmoved. .Every offer by the club has been rejected. They demand the closing down of the cricket club. Nothing else will satisfy them. They have obtained legal aid to sue the cricket club.

 

In support of the case, the Plaintiff relies on the dictum of Lord Reid in Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850, at page 867:

 

"If cricket cannot be played on a ground without creating a substantial risk, then it should not be played there at all".

 

I would agree with that saying if the houses or road was there first, and the cricket ground came there second. We would not allow the garden of Lincoln's Inn to be turned into a cricket ground. It would be too dangerous for windows and people. But I do not agree with Lord Reid's dictum when the cricket ground has been there for 70 years and the houses are newly built at the very edge of it. I recognise that the cricket club are under a duty to use all reasonable care consistently with the playing of the game of cricket, but I do not think the cricket club can be expected to give up the game of cricket altogether. After all they have their rights in their cricket ground. They have spent money, labour and love in the making of it: and they have the right to play upon it as they have done for 70 years. Is this all to be rendered useless to them by the thoughtless and selfish act of an estate developer in building right up to the edge of it? Can the developer or a purchaser of the house say to the cricket club: "Stop playing. Clear out". I do not think so. And I will give my reasons.

 

THE LAW IN THE 19^th CENTURY

 

If we were to approach this case with the eyes of the Judges of the 19th Century, they would, I believe, have seen it in this way: .Every time that a batsman hit a ball over the fence so that it landed in the garden, he would be guilty of a trespass. If he hit it so that it went under the fence and down the bank, he would be guilty of a trespass. So would the committee of the cricket club, because they would have impliedly authorised it. They cheered the batsman on. If one or two of the players went round and asked the householder if they could go into the garden to find it, the householder could deny them access:

 

"You are not to come in here",

 

he could say,

 

"to get your ball. I am not going to get it for you. For will I let you. It is going to stay there".

 

If the cricketers said:

 

"It's a new ball. It cost us over £6",

 

the householder could say:

 

"That is your look-out. You ought not to have put it there".

 

Of course, if the householder picked up the ball himself and gave it to his son to play with, he would be liable in conversion. But otherwise he would not be liable at all. He could say:

 

"An Englishman's house is his castle. You are not coming in. Nor are you to hit your cricket ball in here. If you go on doing it, I am going to get an injunction to stop you. Once I prove the violation of a legal right, the Court of Chancery will grant me an injunction to prevent the recurrence of that violation" –

 

see Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. v. .Broadbent (1859) 7 House of Lords Cases 600. Even if there was any doubt about the plaintiff's right to sue in trespass, he would have a claim in nuisance, once he proved that the balls were repeatedly coming over or under the fence and making things uncomfortable for him. To those claims, in the 19th Century, either in trespass or in nuisance, the committee of the cricket club would have no answer. They could not claim an easement because there is no such easement known to the law as a right to hit cricket balls into your neighbour's land. It would be no good for them to say that the cricket ground was there before the house was built. The householder could rely on the case a hundred years ago of the physician who built his new consulting-room next to the old established kitchen of his neighbour. The physician was held entitled to stop the working of the kitchen on the ground that the noise was a nuisance to him in his consulting-room - see Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Chancery Division 852.

 

The only way in which the cricket club could have succeeded in the 19th Century would have been by invoking the doctrine of "derogation from grant". We were told that until recently the cricket ground and the neighbouring fields were all owned by the National Coal Board. The Coal Board let the cricket ground to the cricket club on a long lease for years knowing that the very purpose of the lease was that the club should play cricket on it for the term of the lease. So long as the National Coal Board owned the neighbouring field, they could not complain of the occasional ball being hit out of the ground on to the field: nor could they have got an injunction to restrain the playing of cricket on the ground, seeing that they had leased it to the club for that very purpose. The reason being simply that it would be a derogation from the grant of the lease for them to do so. And if the National Coal Board sold the land to a purchaser (as they did), the purchaser and subsequent successors in title also could not complain of the occasional ball: nor could they have got an injunction: for the obligation imported by the doctrine of "derogation from grant" runs with the land just as do obligations which arise from a restrictive covenant - see Browne v. Flower (1911) 1 Chancery at page 226, by Mr. Justice Parker.

 

"They bind not only the grantor but also all who claim through him ..."

 

It is in this that the importance of the doctrine lies - see Wade and Megarry's law of Real Property, 4th Edition, page 820.

 

THE LAW IN THE 20^th CENTURY

 

The case here was not pleaded by either side in the formulae of the 19th Century. The plaintiffs did not allege trespass. The defendants did not raise the doctrine of derogation from grant. The case was pleaded in negligence or alternatively nuisance. That was, I think, quite right, having regard to the decision of the House of Lords in Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850,. Miss Stone had just stepped out of her garden gate on to the pavement when she was hit by a cricket ball. She did not sue in trespass to the person. That would be quite out of date. As I said in Letang v. Cooper (1965) 1 Queen's Bench at page 239:

 

"If the defendant does not inflict injury intentionally, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no cause of action today in trespass. His only cause of action is in negligence, and then only on proof of want of reasonable care",

 

Miss Stone did seek to put her case on the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher. She suggested that a cricket ball was a dangerous thing which the defendants had brought on to the cricket ground and it had escaped. That suggestion was dismissed by the House of Lords out of hand. Lord Reid said:

 

"There is no substance in that argument"

 

- see [1951] AC at page 867. She also suggested that the club were liable in nuisance: but this was not pressed in the House of Lords, because nuisance was not distinguishable from negligence. Lord Porter remarked that

 

"in the circumstances of this case nuisance cannot be established unless negligence is proved'', see (1951) Appeal Cases at page 860.

 

In our present case, too, nuisance was pleaded as an alternative to negligence. The tort of nuisance in many cases overlaps the tort of negligence. The boundary lines were discussed in two adjoining cases in the Privy Council. The Wagon Mound in [1967] 1 AC 617 at page 639; and Goldman v. Hargrave in [1967] 1 AC 645 at page 657. But there is at any rate one important distinction between them. It lies in the nature of the remedy sought. Is it damages? Or an injunction? If the plaintiff seeks a remedy in damages for injury done to him or his property, he can lay his claim either in negligence or nuisance. But, if he seeks an injunction to stop the playing of cricket altogether, I think he must make his claim in nuisance. The books are full of cases where an injunction has been granted to restrain the continuance of a nuisance. But there is no case, so far as I know, where it has been granted so as to stop a man being negligent. At any rate in a case of this kind where an occupier of a house or land seeks to restrain his neighbour from doing something on his own land, the only appropriate cause of action - on which to base the remedy of an injunction - is nuisance - see the report of the Law Commission on dangerous activities, Law Commission Report No. 32 at page 25. It is the very essence of a private nuisance that it is the unreasonable use by a man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour. He must have been guilty of the fault, not necessarily of negligence, but of the unreasonable use of the land - see The Wagon Mound (1967) 1 Appeal Cases at page 639 by Lord Reid.

 

It has been often said in nuisance cases that the rule is six utere tuo ut alienuin non laedas. But that is a most misleading maxim. Lord Wright put it in its proper place in Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, at page 903:

 

''It is not only lacking in definiteness, but is also inaccurate. An occupier may make in many ways a use of his land which causes damage to the neighbouring landowners, and yet be free from liability ... a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary uses of mankind living in society, or, more correctly, in a particular society."

 

I would, therefore, adopt this test: Is the use by the cricket club of this ground for playing cricket a reasonable use of it? To my mind it is a most reasonable use. Just consider the circumstances. For over 70 years the game of cricket has been played on this ground to the great benefit of the community as a whole, and to the injury of none. No one could suggest that it was a nuisance to the neighbouring owners simply because an enthusiastic batsman occasionally hit a ball out of the ground for six to the approval of the admiring onlookers. Then I would ask: Does it suddenly become a nuisance because one of the neighbours chooses to build a house on the very edge of the ground - in such a position that it may well be struck by the ball on the rare occasion when there is a hit for six? To my mind the answer is plainly No. The building of the house does not convert the playing of cricket into a nuisance when it was not so before. If and in so far as any damage is caused to the house or anyone in it, it is because of the position in which it was built. Suppose that the house had not been built by a developer, but by a private owner. He would be in much the same position as the farmer who previously put his cows in the field. He could not complain if a batsman hit a six out of the ground - and by a million to one chance - it struck a cow or even the farmer himself. He would be in no better position than a spectator at Lord's or the Oval or at a motor rally. At any rate, even if he could claim damages for the loss of the cow or the injury, he could not get an injunction to stop the cricket. If the private owner could not get an injunction, neither should a developer or a purchaser from him.

 

It was said, however, that the case of the physician's consulting room was to the contrary. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Chancery Division 852. But that turned on the old law about easements and prescriptions, and so forth. It was in the days when rights of property were in the ascendant and not subject to any limitations except those provided by the law of easements. But nowadays it is a matter of balancing the conflicting interests of the two neighbours. That was made clear by Lord Wright in Sedleigh-Denfield v.O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, at page 903, when he said:

 

"A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with".

 

In this case it is our task to balance the right of the cricket club to continue playing cricket on their cricket ground - as against the right of the householder not to be interfered with. Upon taking the balance, I would give priority to the right of the cricket club to continue playing cricket on the ground, as they have done for the last seventy years. It takes precedence over the right of the newcomer to sit in his garden undisturbed. After all he bought the house four years ago in mid-summer when the cricket season was at its height. He might have guessed that there was a risk that a hit for six might possibly land on his property. If he finds that he does not like it, he ought, when cricket is played, to sit in the other side of the house or in the front garden, or go out: or take advantage of the offers the club have made to him of fitting unbreakable glass, and so forth. Or, if he does not like that, he ought to sell his house and move elsewhere. I expect there are many who would gladly buy it in order to be near the cricket field and open space. At any rate he ought not to be allowed to stop cricket being played on this ground. This case is new. It should be approached on principles applicable to modern conditions. There is a contest here between the interest of the public at large; and the interest of a private individual. The public interest lies in protecting the environment by preserving our playing fields in the face of mounting development, and by enabling our youth to enjoy all the benefits of outdoor games, such as cricket and football. The private interest lies in securing the privacy of his home and garden without intrusion or interference by anyone. In deciding between these two conflicting interests, it must be remembered that it is not a question of damages. If by a million-to-one chance a cricket ball does go out of the ground and cause damage, the cricket club will pay. There is no difficulty on that score. No it is a question of an injunction. And in our law you will find it repeatedly affirmed that an injunction is a discretionary remedy. In a new situation like this, we have to think afresh as to how discretion should be exercised. On the one hand, Mrs. Miller is a very sensitive lady who has worked herself up into such a state that she exclaimed to the Judge:

 

"I just want to be allowed to live in peace. Have we got to wait until someone is killed before anything can be done?"

 

If she feels like that about it, it is quite plain that, for peace in the future, one or other has to move. Either the cricket club have to move: But goodness knows where. I do not suppose for a moment there is any field in Lintz to which they could move. Or Mrs. Miller must move elsewhere. As between their conflicting interests, I am of opinion that the public interest should prevail over the private interest. The cricket club should not be driven out. In my opinion the right exercise of discretion is to refuse an injunction. I would allow the appeal, accordingly.

[HexMachina]

Nice to read as Denning's judgements usually are, was it really necessary to paste the whole thing rather than a link...

[arantius]

Hello n00bs and oletimers, long time no speaky here.  I was just looking to register for CoNZealand membership and now have heart palpitations because it costs $400NZD (around A$375).  Anyway, still going to go, but I also noticed prices go up another $25NZD on 1 October, so if anyone’s planning to go now might be a good time to lock in a membership.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 9/5/2019 at 3:55 PM, The Marquis de Leech said:

 

 

If she feels like that about it, it is quite plain that, for peace in the future, one or other has to move. Either the cricket club have to move: But goodness knows where. I do not suppose for a moment there is any field in Lintz to which they could move. Or Mrs. Miller must move elsewhere. As between their conflicting interests, I am of opinion that the public interest should prevail over the private interest. The cricket club should not be driven out. In my opinion the right exercise of discretion is to refuse an injunction. I would allow the appeal, accordingly.

And I guess this is also a significant difference between the dentist and the cricket club. Public vs private interests. A lot of rules and regs we have in our societies are about deciding between this balance. Sometimes it's important to protect private interests, other times the public interest must prevail. Balance least harm and maximum benefit. Personally, I can see a distinction between the dentist and the cricket club in this respect.

[Stubby]

On 9/10/2019 at 6:24 AM, arantius said:

Hello n00bs and oletimers, long time no speaky here.  I was just looking to register for CoNZealand membership and now have heart palpitations because it costs $400NZD (around A$375).  Anyway, still going to go, but I also noticed prices go up another $25NZD on 1 October, so if anyone’s planning to go now might be a good time to lock in a membership.

Thanks for the heads up

[Stubby]

On 9/10/2019 at 9:14 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

And I guess this is also a significant difference between the dentist and the cricket club. Public vs private interests. A lot of rules and regs we have in our societies are about deciding between this balance. Sometimes it's important to protect private interests, other times the public interest must prevail. Balance least harm and maximum benefit. Personally, I can see a distinction between the dentist and the cricket club in this respect.

Yep. Nowadays, the dentist issue is unlikely to arise because of zoning laws etc.

I don't really have a view on the Vegan case, except to note that, as is often the case in neighbour disputes, it is always a bad idea to be selfish when your neighbours are concerned. 

[Jeor]

4 hours ago, Stubby said:

As is often the case in neighbour disputes, it is always a bad idea to be selfish when your neighbours are concerned. 

I totally agree. I'm so paralysed by the thought that my neighours might not like me (I live in an apartment block and one of the guys on the strata committee is next door) that I probably overcompensate a bit. I recently had renovations done and wrote an apologetic card and bought a box of chocolates for each of my neighbours in advance.

I don't know why you'd knowingly start potential conflict with someone that literally lives next door to you 24/7. Call me cowardly, but even if a guy down the hall started a chainsaw at 2am each night I'd let it ride at least a week before I brought it up.

[Paxter]

On 8/30/2019 at 11:04 PM, Jeor said:

The horror show that is the NSW Labor party keeps on giving...

Not to be outdone, the NSW Libs are apparently going to call a spill motion in protest against modernizing the legal framework around abortion. What a joke.