Sturges v Bridgman

• The defendant confectioner had operated noisy machinery for many years without any prior complaint. A doctor subsequently moved into the adjoining property and built a consulting room positioned such that the noise interfered with his medical practice. The confectioner argued his longstanding prior use had established a right to continue. The doctor sued for nuisance.

1. Whether a longstanding, previously uncomplained-of activity becomes an actionable nuisance once a neighbouring property's new use makes the activity's effect substantial, and whether prior duration defeats such a claim.

• The reasonableness of an activity is assessed relative to its actual current effect on the specific neighbouring use, not fixed permanently by the activity's own historical duration. The confectioner's noise, though longstanding, became a nuisance given its substantial interference with the doctor's new use. The doctor's own new construction did not constitute unreasonable sensitivity defeating the claim. The confectioner's prior use had not established a permanent right to continue the noise unchanged.

An activity's reasonableness is not fixed permanently based on its own historical, uncomplained-of duration, but assessed relative to its actual effect on the current specific neighbouring use. "Coming to the nuisance," where the plaintiff's use is more recent, does not automatically defeat an otherwise valid nuisance claim.