Facts:
The case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles revolves around the actions of Mr. Pickles, the defendant, who owned land adjacent to the City of Bradford's water supply. The water that flowed from Pickles' land to the city's reservoirs was crucial for the city's water supply. Pickles, with full knowledge of this, began sinking shafts and altering the flow of the underground water, thereby threatening the water supply to the city. The city council, which held no easement or legal right over the water beneath Pickles' land, sought an injunction to prevent Pickles from continuing his actions.

Pickles argued that he was simply exercising his rights as a landowner, which allowed him to use his land as he saw fit, even if that use interfered with the city's water supply. The city contended that Pickles' actions were motivated solely by malice and that his interference was an abuse of his rights as a property owner.

Court: House of Lords, United Kingdom Decision Date: 24th July 1895 Bench: Lord Halsbury L.C., Lord Watson, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten Citation: [1895] AC 587

Arguments:

For the Plaintiff (City of Bradford):

• The city argued that Pickles' actions were intended to coerce the city into purchasing his land at an inflated price.
• The malicious intent behind Pickles' actions should constitute an unlawful interference with the city's rights to the water.
• The city asserted that, while Pickles might have legal rights over the land, his malicious intent rendered his actions unlawful.

For the Defendant (Pickles):

• Pickles contended that he was within his legal rights to do whatever he wished with the land, including altering the flow of underground water.
• He argued that the law did not provide any easement or right to the city over the underground water under his property.
• Pickles maintained that, irrespective of his motives, his actions were lawful, as he was merely exercising his proprietary rights.

Issues:

• Whether the defendant, Pickles, had unlawfully interfered with the water supply to the City of Bradford by altering the flow of water on his own land.
• Whether malicious intent in exercising a legal right could render otherwise lawful actions unlawful.

Judgment:
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal brought by the City of Bradford. The court held that Pickles was within his legal rights to alter the water flow on his land, even if his actions were driven by malice. The court emphasized that the law does not provide a remedy for actions taken out of spite if those actions are within the legal rights of the individual.

Lord Halsbury L.C., delivering the leading judgment, stated that the law recognized the absolute right of a landowner to use his property as he sees fit, even if the exercise of that right adversely affects others. The presence of malice did not, in this case, transform a lawful act into an unlawful one. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Analysis:
The decision in Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles established a crucial precedent in the law of tort regarding the exercise of property rights. The case underscored the principle that the motive behind exercising a legal right is irrelevant to the legality of the action itself. The court's ruling affirmed that a landowner has an absolute right to alter subterranean water on his property, even if the alteration is motivated by malice and causes harm to others.

This case also clarified that the law does not interfere with the lawful exercise of proprietary rights, even when those rights are exercised with malicious intent. The decision highlighted the distinction between lawful actions taken within the bounds of property rights and those that might constitute an actionable tort if done outside those bounds.

Conclusion:
The ruling in Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles remains a landmark decision in the law of tort, particularly in relation to property rights and the principle that malice does not transform lawful actions into unlawful ones. The case reinforces the idea that the courts will protect the lawful exercise of property rights, even when exercised with ill intent, as long as no legal right of another party is infringed. The judgment exemplifies the importance of legal principles over subjective considerations of motive in the application of the law.