Malone v Laskey (1907) 2 KB 141 (25 March 1907)

The wife of an employee was injured by a falling cistern, caused by vibrations from a neighbouring engine. Her claim failed as she had no proprietary or contractual right to the property, only a licence to be there, defeating claims in both nuisance and negligence.

Facts

The claimant, Mrs Malone, resided in a house with her husband. The house was rented not by them, but by her husband’s employer, a company. Mr Malone was the company’s manager and occupied the house as part of his employment arrangement. The landlords had fixed a water cistern to the wall of the lavatory, but the work was carried out negligently, leaving the supporting bracket insecure. The defendants, Laskey & Co., were tenants of the adjoining property. They operated an electricity generator in their cellar, which caused persistent vibrations. These vibrations eventually caused the cistern’s bracket to dislodge, and the cistern fell onto Mrs Malone, causing her injury. She brought a claim against the defendants for both negligence and nuisance.

Issues

The Court of Appeal had to determine two primary legal issues:

1. Could the defendants be held liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by the claimant?
2. Could the claimant, who had no proprietary interest in the property, maintain an action in private nuisance?

Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, holding that she had no cause of action against the defendants in either negligence or nuisance.

Negligence

The court found that there was no contractual relationship between the claimant and the defendants, and consequently, the defendants owed no duty of care to her regarding the maintenance or condition of the cistern. The potential danger was not considered inherently dangerous in a way that would create a wider duty to third parties. Sir Gorell Barnes P. stated:

The plaintiff was not a party to any contract, and the defendants owed no duty to her… many cases shew that in such circumstances the plaintiff has no right of action.

Nuisance

The central point of the judgment rested on the claimant’s standing to sue in nuisance. The court reasoned that an action in private nuisance is designed to protect an individual’s rights in land. Since Mrs Malone was merely residing in the house as a licensee of her husband’s employer (the tenant), she did not have a sufficient proprietary or possessory interest in the property to bring a claim. She was considered a ‘mere licensee’. Kennedy L.J., while assuming for the sake of argument that the vibrations could constitute a nuisance, concluded that the claimant’s lack of interest in the property was fatal to her case:

Can the plaintiff, who was merely present in the house, sue for this nuisance? I think not. It seems to be clear that a person who has no interest in property, no right of occupation in the proper sense of the term, cannot maintain an action for a nuisance arising from the use of an adjoining property.

Implications

The decision in Malone v Laskey firmly established the principle that a person must have a proprietary or possessory interest in land to sue in private nuisance. This ‘proprietary interest rule’ excluded family members, lodgers, and other licensees living on a property from bringing claims, restricting the tort’s protection to those with formal legal rights such as owners or tenants. This precedent was highly influential for much of the 20th century. While it was briefly challenged and overturned by the Court of Appeal in Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727, the traditional rule was authoritatively reinstated by the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, which affirmed the core reasoning of Malone v Laskey. The case therefore remains a landmark authority on the standing required to bring an action in private nuisance.

Verdict: The claimant’s appeal was dismissed; the action was not maintainable.

Source: Malone v Laskey (1907) 2 KB 141 (25 March 1907)