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 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.
The House of Lords reinstated the proprietary interest requirement of Malone v Laskey, although added an amendment that a spouse’s beneficial interest (another property law concept) conferred upon him or her a proprietary interest.
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.
Apr 1, 2017 · Her claim failed as she was merely a guest and to bring an action for a nuisance the person has to have a proprietary interest i.e., should have legal rights in the property. A claim in private nuisance can only be valid if the claim has been brought by a person who has ownership rights in the property.
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.
Malone v. Laskey, although wrongly decided in principle, was at least consistent with the decisions which found no liability on the part of manufacturers for damage caused to noncontracting parties by the negligent manufacture of their goods. There was absolutely no justification, however, for the decision in Davis v.
