Bradford Corporation v. Pickles
Rule established
Where an act is otherwise lawful, the actor's malicious motive for performing it does not convert the act into an actionable tort.
Facts
- Pickles owned land beneath which underground water flowed toward Bradford Corporation's water supply
- Pickles began works diverting this water, discolouring and diminishing the Corporation's supply
- His clear motive was to pressure the Corporation into purchasing his land at an inflated price
- The Corporation sought an injunction, arguing this malicious diversion was actionable
Issue
- Whether a landowner's malicious motive for an otherwise lawful act (diverting water beneath his own land) renders that act tortious.
Held
- Pickles was entitled, as a matter of law, to divert underground water flowing beneath his own land
- This right existed regardless of his motive for exercising it
- Malice does not convert a lawful act into an unlawful one
- No injunction was granted; the Corporation had no remedy against this specific conduct
Ratio Decidendi
Where a person has a legal right to do an act, the presence of a malicious or spiteful motive for exercising that right does not make the act actionable. Motive is generally irrelevant to liability where the underlying act itself is lawful.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Classic illustration of malice's general irrelevance to tortious liability.
- Part B: Contrast with contexts where malice DOES matter: malicious prosecution, qualified privilege in defamation.
- Key line: "Malicious motive does not convert an otherwise lawful act into an actionable tort."
Source
Source: [1895] AC 587
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Law of TortsGeneral Principles of Liability Fault Malice and NegligenceMalice generally irrelevant; lawful act remains lawful regardless of motive