Case Brief Wiki
Advertisement

Facts[]

Mellish and Cox were two merry-go-round owners who lived near Lambton, the two owners were competing for business and a nuisance claim was bought against them both.

Issue[]

  1. If the true nuisance is the aggregate of two smaller nuisances that may not be large enough to themselves give rise to a cause of action, is there truly a nuisance?

Decision[]

Judgment for the plaintiff, interim injunction granted.

Reasons[]

Chitty states that in cases where the actionable offense is the aggregate of two or more smaller offenses that know of each other’s existence, then each is liable for the remedy against the aggregate complaint. Therefore in this case, although the true nuisance is the combination of both organs, both of them must cease their playing when the injunction is granted, even if one might not be loud enough to create an actionable offence. Each defendant must be restrained in respect of his own share of the offence.

Ratio[]

If the actionable damage is the aggregate of two or more smaller damages, then all of the parties are liable for the remedy against the overall damage proportionally to their own input as long as they are aware of each other’s actions.

Advertisement