## Facts

- The claimant resided in a property owned by her husband's employer.
- Her husband was a tenant of the premises, holding a leasehold interest.
- The claimant occupied the property solely by virtue of her husband's lease, making her a licensee and not a tenant or owner.
- During her occupancy, a cistern in the lavatory fell due to vibrations caused by the neighboring defendant’s electricity generator.
- The falling cistern injured the claimant, who then sought to sue the neighbor for nuisance, alleging that the generator’s vibrations were the cause.
- The key question was whether the claimant, as a licensee without a legal or proprietary interest in the land, could bring an action in nuisance.

## Issues

1. Whether a licensee, without possessory or proprietary interest in land, has legal standing to bring a claim in private nuisance.
2. Whether the claimant's status as a mere licensee derived from her husband's tenancy sufficed to confer a legal ‘interest’ in land for the purpose of a nuisance claim.
3. Whether a license in itself constitutes an adequate 'interest' to support a claim for interference with land under nuisance law.

## Decision

- The court held that the claimant, as a mere licensee, did not possess a sufficient proprietary or possessory interest in the property to bring a nuisance claim.
- It was determined that standing in nuisance is reserved for those with a demonstrable legal interest in the affected land, such as tenants or owners.
- The claimant's presence on the property via her husband's tenancy did not confer the required legal rights to bring proceedings in nuisance.
- The claim was dismissed on the basis of lack of legal standing.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant in private nuisance must hold a proprietary or possessory interest in the land allegedly affected by nuisance.
- A mere license to occupy property, without legal or equitable ownership or a leasehold interest, is insufficient to establish standing in nuisance.
- Nuisance is a tort relating to land and the right to sue is linked to a demonstrable legal interest in that land.

## Conclusion

Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141 established that only those with a legal or equitable proprietary interest or possessory right in affected land may bring a private nuisance claim; mere licensees are excluded, a principle that shaped the law until later cases reconsidered the scope of standing in nuisance claims.