Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent, the owner and occupier of a disused inner-city cinema, intended shortly to demolish the building and replace it with a supermarket. In June 1976, while the cinema lay empty, local youths repeatedly forced entry, vandalised the premises and, on two occasions, attempted to light small fires inside. On 5 July 1976 vandals set a deliberate fire that consumed the cinema and spread to neighbouring properties: a café and a church.

The neighbouring proprietors (the Appellants) brought actions in the Court of Session (Scotland) alleging that the Respondent had negligently failed to secure the cinema and to guard against foreseeable fire raising. The Lord Ordinary found for the Appellants. On reclaiming motion, the First Division unanimously reversed that decision, holding that the Respondent owed no duty to prevent the criminal acts in question.

The Appellants appealed to the House of Lords. By order dated 5 February 1987, the House heard consolidated appeals and delivered the present judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What general duty of care does an owner–occupier of vacant premises owe to neighbouring proprietors?
2. Does that general duty extend to taking affirmative steps (such as 24-hour guarding) to prevent unlawful entry and wilful fire-raising by third-party trespassers?
3. Is the deliberate wrongdoing of independent third parties a foreseeable consequence for which an occupier can be liable in negligence or nuisance?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The empty cinema, by reason of its structure and location, was an obvious attraction to youths; entry and damage were highly foreseeable.
• A foreseeable chain of events—unauthorised entry, vandalism, fire, spread to adjoining buildings—imposed a duty to employ effective precautions, even if that meant continuous guarding.
• Case law (e.g., Dorset Yacht, Goldman v Hargrave) demonstrates that a duty may arise where the defendant’s inaction allows third-party wrongdoing to harm others.

Respondent's Arguments

• Mere foreseeability of vandalism is insufficient; the probability of deliberate fire-raising was remote on the facts known to the Respondent.
• Imposing a duty to guard vacant buildings round-the-clock would create an intolerable burden on property owners and unduly restrict ordinary use of land.
• Policy and precedent establish no general duty to prevent the independent criminal acts of trespassers; responsibility for securing property against such acts lies primarily with its owner.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House unanimously dismissed the appeals. The central reasoning, synthesised from the individual speeches, may be summarised as follows:

• General duty recognised but limited. An owner–occupier must take reasonable care that his property does not become a source of danger to neighbours. (Judge Brandon)
• Foreseeability threshold not met. Without actual or imputed knowledge of prior fire attempts, the Respondent could not reasonably foresee that trespassing youths would deliberately set a destructive fire. (Judge Mackay)
• No “specific duty” to prevent criminal trespass. The law imposes no universal obligation to secure vacant buildings against all deliberate wrongdoing; such a duty arises only in “exceptional circumstances”, e.g., where a known hazard exists or a special relationship subsists. (Judge Griffiths; Judge Goff)
• Policy considerations. Requiring continuous guarding of tens of thousands of empty premises would be an “intolerable burden” on property owners and an unreasonable interference with property rights. (Judge Griffiths)
• Distinguishing precedents. Authorities imposing liability involved either control over the wrongdoer (Dorset Yacht), creation/adoption of a manifest hazard (Goldman), or assumption of responsibility (Stansbie). None applied here.
• Chain of causation. The vandals’ deliberate act constituted a new cause; absent a duty to prevent that act, the Respondent’s omissions did not ground liability. (Judge Keith concurring)

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Appeals DISMISSED; interlocutors of 19 November 1985 AFFIRMED; costs awarded to Respondent.

Immediate effect: the Appellants receive no compensation from the Respondent, and must pay the Respondent’s costs.

Broader implications: The judgment confirms that owners of vacant property are not ordinarily liable for criminal damage initiated by trespassers unless the risk is both evident and exceptional. It reinforces the principle that foreseeability alone does not create a duty to guard against independent third-party wrongdoing, thereby limiting potential occupiers’ liability and preserving practical freedom to leave property temporarily unoccupied without extraordinary security measures.