When determining whether the defendant’s use of land is reasonable, the intention of the defending party is relevant to the outcome, malice behind acts may render them unreasonable and thus unlawful.

CASE SUMMARY

Claimant: Fox breeders

Defendant: Farmer and animal rights activist

Facts: The claimants were fox breeders, female foxes whilst pregnant, may miscarry their young if they are distressed during pregnancy. In order to deliberately cause distress, the defendant ordered shooting to happen on his farm, near the neighbouring fox farm. The defendants felt that the fox farming was not a natural use of land and that his shooting should be allowed as it would not distress animals that would usually be present for the purposes of farming.

Outcome: Liable

Legal principle: The intention of the defending party is relevant to the outcome, here the malice behind the acts rendered them unreasonable and thus unlawful.