Court: House of Lords
Citation: [1895]
A.C. 587
Decided on: 29 July 1895
Appellants: The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses
of the Borough of Bradford
Respondent: Edward Pickles
Facts
The old waterworks company was incorporated by an Act passed in 1842 (5 Vict. Sess. 2, c. vi.). It was dissolved and re-incorporated in 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. cxxiv.) known as Bradford Waterworks Company with a view of the immediate transfer of the undertaking to the corporation. The founders of these companies acquired a pack of land known as Trooper Farm and also certain streams and springs. From these streams and springs the appellants and their forerunner have previously acquired a valuable supply of water for the domestic use of the resident of Bradford city. The act of 1842 also included certain lands which the company was empowered to take. Among that there was a farm known as Trooper Farm or Many Wells Farm which was belonging to Seth Wright.
The appellant obtains the supply of water from two resources
which is near to the west boundaries of the Trooper Farms. Primary source is a
large spring known as Many Wells which is twenty or thirty yards to the east of
Doll Lane. The city water supply came from this
spring, the Many Wells Spring, seven miles from Bradford city. The land on
which the spring was located was owned by the Corporation of Bradford, the
municipal authority responsible for the town's water supply. Secondary source is a stream to the south of Many Wells which
has its origination in a small spring on the respondent’s land which is close
to Doll Lane after that water is being supplied from a point known as the
watering spot from there water suns through definite channel into the Trooper
Farms.
Adjoining
the Many Wells spring there was land owned by Respondent. Respondent’s land has steep slope
downwards to the land and on a higher level compared to Trooper Farm. The
spring water was the source of the town's water supply which came from
underneath Respondent farm.
In
the early 1890s Respondent began constructing a series of shafts and tunnels on
his land that had the effect of diverting the supply of water running into the
Many Wells Spring which
resulted in decline of water flow and to the land of the Appellant and it has
become apparent that it would result into permanent diminution of water supply
obtained from those sources the town's water supply
was threatened. Respondent claimed that this construction was part of a plan to
mine for flagstone on his land. Respondent then approached the Appellant and
offered to sell his land at an exorbitant price. The Appellant
felt that respondent
had maliciously done it so that the appellant would purchase his land at an
exorbitant price but the Appellant refused to purchase.
The appellant, believing that either
statute or common law will protect them from such malicious action then the appellant brought the suit
against him in which they asked the court to issue an injunction to restrain
the respondent from digging the shaft and to cease from doing anything with
results in stoppage of water supply or diminished in quality or injuriously
affected or polluted.
Issues
Can a use of
property which would be legal if due to proper motive becomes illegal because
it is prompted by motive which is malicious?
Appellant's Arguments
The appellants claimed in
their statement that the respondent had not a bona fide intention to work with
minerals, and that his intention was to harm / injure the appellants and so to
endeavor to influence them either to purchase his land or to give him some
compensation. For the forty years the Appellant have supplied water to their
town, they were empowered by an Act of Parliament in 1854, which authorize them
to do so.
The Appellant
seek to restrain the defendant from doing certain acts as they have allegedly interfered
with the supply of water whereas they should be the reason of better supplying
the town of Bradford.
The acts
done by the defendant was all done upon his own land and furthermore he interfered
with the flow of water, which is underground and percolating water and flowing
in any defined stream which would undoubtedly reach the Appellant’s works, and
in that sense does deprive them of the water which they get.
Respondent's Arguments
The appellant has no case against us
unless they can show that they are entitled to the flow of water and further
that the defendant has no claim to do what he is doing. Respondent
claimed that this construction was part of his plan to mine for flagstone on
his land. Even after doing that act Respondent approached the Appellant for
selling his land. But the Appellant refused to purchase it. It was all done
within the ambit of his own land.
Judgement
The House of
Lords held that the respondent was not liable even though his act which caused
harm to the appellant was done maliciously. The respondent’s act was a lawful
act and if it caused any harm to the appellant then he was not liable. Further
stated, I am,
therefore, of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
This is not a case in which the state of mind of
the person doing the act can affect the right to do it. If it was a lawful act,
however ill the motive might be, he had a right to do it. If it was an unlawful
act, however good his motive might be, he would have no right to do it. Motives
and intentions in such a question as is now before your Lordships seem to me to
be absolutely irrelevant.
Lord
Ashbourne said: “The plaintiffs have no cause of action unless they can show
that they are entitled to the flow of water in question and that the defendant
has no right to do what he is doing…”
){kind=link}