March 2019
« Jul    

Farrer v Nelson; 1885

References: (1885) 15 QB 258
Coram: Pollock B
The plaintiff was tenant of a farm over which the defendants’ predecessor had reserved shooting rights. The defendants had brought pheasants in coops on to land very close to the plaintiffs’ farm. The came onto the farm damaging his crops. The defendant said that having a right of shooting over the land, it was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of this right that they should be at liberty to stock the land with pheasants.
Held: Pollock B said that so long as the lessee of the right of shooting was exercising the ordinary rights which the landlord who had reserved the right might have exercised, he was acting within his rights, but the moment he brings on game to an unreasonable amount or causes it to increase to an unreasonable extent, he is doing that which is unlawful, and an action may be maintained by his neighbour for the damage which he has sustained.
This case is cited by:

  • Explained – Peech v Best CA ([1931] KB 1)
    The defendant owned a 700 acre farm. He granted to the plaintiff ‘the exclusive right of shooting and sporting in over and upon it’ for a term of fourteen years. With still some four years of the term to run, he conveyed 12 acres of the farm for the . .
  • Cited – Pole and Cutsem v A H Peake (Male) and Caroline Mary Peake CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1229)
    The defendants owned land over which the plaintiffs owned shooting and other sporting rights. When the plaintiffs licenced those rights to others the defendants objected and prevented access. They appealed a finding that they had infringed the . .

Leave a Reply