Search results
Legal Case Summary. Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141. Tort Law – Interest – Standing – Nuisance. Facts. The claimant lived in a house belonging to her husband’s employer. The claimant’s husband was a tenant, and she had a license to live at the property.
Malone v Laskey 1907 2 KB 141. The claimant was injured when vibrations from an engine on an adjoining property caused a bracket to come loose and the cistern to fall on her in the lavatory. She was unsuccessful in her claim as she did not have a proprietary interest in the house.
Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141. Tort Law – Interest – Standing – Nuisance. Facts. The claimant lived in a house belonging to her husband’s employer. The claimant’s husband was a tenant, and she had a license to live at the property.
Case in Focus: Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141. The claimant lived next door to a business which used heavy machinery. She lived with her husband, who was allowed to live in the property because he was a manager employed by the business which let the property. In property law terms, he was a licensee.
Jan 17, 2021 · [1907] 2 k. 141 be formulated, to the effect that a person who has no interest in property, no right of occupation in the proper sense of the term, can maintain an action for a nuisance arising from the vibration caused by the working of an engine in an adjoining house.
to consider the effect of the decision in Malone v. Laskey [1907] 2 K.B. 141, an authority which, it seems, would in the opinion of the court, have bound it to decide for the defendants even apart from Miss Ball's carelessness. The views expressed by the court upon this matter may fairly be summarised in the following way. In a case of this ...
Jan 16, 2009 · 56 Malone v. Laskey [1907] 2 K.B. 141, in so far as it conflicts, is, in Denning L.J.'s view, founded on a fallacy and inconsistent with Haseldine v. Daw which should prevail; and Ball v. L. C. C. [1949] 2 K.B. 159 cannot be considered as of any higher authority than Malone v. Laskey itself.
