UNDERSTANDING TORT LAW PRIVATE NUISANCE 04 THE DEFENDANTS MOTIVE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

UNDERSTANDING TORT LAW PRIVATE NUISANCE

04 THE DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE

The Mayor Of Bradford v Pickles [1895] AC 587 (HL)

LORD WATSON

“No use of property, which would be legal if due to a proper motive, can become illegal because it is prompted by a motive which is improper or even malicious.”

• If the act is lawful, then the D has a right to do it
• If the act is unlawful, then the D has no right to do it
• Therefore, malice is not relevant

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Limited v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 408 (CA) & Christie v Davey [1893] 1 h 316

“I have a perfect right to amuse myself on any musical instrument I may choose … What I do is simply for recreation’s sake, and to perfect myself in my musical studies”. “[Y]ou say that I interfere with your clients’ professional pursuits. Just so; this is simply reversing my complaint, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

Christie

• The D was making noise
• The P was making noise
• This is the same activity
• P wins only because of the Ds’ malice. The D’s malice breaks the tie.

Hollywood

• The D was shooting
• The P was raising foxes
• Prima facie, the D’s activity was more ordinary/reasonable/fundamental than the P’s
• Nevertheless, the P wins.
• Thus, the D’s malice reverses what would otherwise have been the outcome of the case.

Christie

• The D was banging on the walls
• The P was playing music
• The P’s activity was more ordinary/reasonable/fundamental than the D’s

Hollywood

• The D was damaging the P’s property
• The P was raising foxes
• P’s activity was more ordinary/reasonable/fundamental than the D’s