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

Mrs Malone, a licensee occupying premises through her husband's employment, was injured when a cistern bracket fell. The Court of Appeal held she could not sue the property owners for nuisance (having no proprietary interest) or negligence (no contractual duty owed to her). This case established that only those with property interests can sue for private nuisance.

Facts

The defendants were trustees of the Birkbeck Building Society and owned 44 Southampton Buildings, which they let to Witherby & Co. in 1899 under an oral agreement with no obligation to repair. Witherby & Co. subsequently sub-let part of the premises to the Script Shorthand Company, whose manager, Mr Malone, resided there with his wife (the plaintiff) as part of his remuneration. In 1902, the defendants installed electric light engines on adjoining premises, which caused vibration.

In late 1904, the plaintiff and her husband complained about the unsafe condition of a water cistern in the lavatory, which they attributed to the vibration. In January 1905, the defendants voluntarily sent their own plumbers to repair the cistern by installing a supporting bracket. Three months later, in May 1905, the bracket fell and seriously injured the plaintiff.

Issues

First Issue: Nuisance

Whether the plaintiff could maintain an action for private nuisance arising from the vibration caused by the defendants’ engines, given that she had no proprietary interest in the premises and was merely a licensee.

Second Issue: Negligence

Whether the defendants owed any duty of care to the plaintiff in carrying out the repairs, and whether their negligent workmanship gave rise to a cause of action.

Judgment

On Nuisance

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the plaintiff had no cause of action in nuisance. Sir Gorell Barnes, President, stated that the plaintiff had no interest in property and no right of occupation in the proper sense of the term. Fletcher Moulton LJ emphasised that a person merely present in a house as a licensee cannot complain of a private nuisance, which is a matter entirely for the tenant.

On Negligence

The Court held that no cause of action in negligence was established. There was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants were under no obligation to repair, and their doing so was a gratuitous act not done in discharge of any duty to the plaintiff. The defendants were not in possession or control of the premises and therefore could not be said to have invited the plaintiff onto them.

Sir Gorell Barnes held that even if the defendants’ actions amounted to a representation that the premises were safe, it was an innocent representation made by employing apparently competent workmen, and gave the plaintiff no cause of action.

Kennedy LJ, whilst expressing some doubt, ultimately agreed that the case could not be brought within any class of cases establishing liability in negligence without contractual duty or control of premises.

Implications

This case established the important principle that only persons with a proprietary or possessory interest in land can maintain an action for private nuisance. Mere licensees or family members of occupiers have no standing to sue for nuisance affecting the premises.

The decision also confirmed that where a landlord voluntarily undertakes repairs to premises over which they have no control and no contractual obligation, they do not thereby assume a duty of care to all persons who may be present on those premises. This principle distinguished the case from the established ‘trap’ cases where occupiers in control of premises invite visitors onto them.

The case remains significant authority on the distinction between those who can and cannot sue in private nuisance, and on the limits of duties of care in the absence of contractual relationships or control over premises.

Verdict: Judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff's claims in both nuisance and negligence were dismissed. The Court of Appeal set aside the jury's verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

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