Which case highlighted the concept of "moving to the nuisance" not serving as a defense?

The concept of "moving to the nuisance" refers to the idea that a person cannot complain about a nuisance if they moved into an area knowing that the nuisance existed. In the case of Miller v Jackson, this principle was specifically addressed. The court highlighted that knowledge of existing activities does not preclude the possibility of claiming that such activities constitute a nuisance.

In Miller v Jackson, the plaintiffs were aware of the cricket club's operations when they purchased their property. However, the court ruled that the cricket club's activities could still be considered a nuisance due to the significant impact they had on the plaintiff's enjoyment of their home. This case underscores that simply relocating to an area with known nuisances does not automatically invalidate a claim for nuisance, highlighting the principle that land use should coexist without causing undue harm to neighbors.

This ruling serves as a guiding precedent in nuisance law, showing that even if someone is aware of a nuisance, it doesn’t excuse the responsible party from liability if their activities are genuinely harmful or intrusive.