McQuaker v Goddard Camel Domesticated Animal Case
Got a query about tenancy agreement or Renters Rights Act claims? Get in touch using the form below
Image – A camel in a flat – absolutely not an AI image.
Table of Contents
The landmark case of McQuaker v Goddard [1940] 1 KB 687 remains a cornerstone of English law on the classification of animals for civil liability. The dispute began when a visitor to the defendant’s zoological garden near London was bitten by an Arabian camel kept in a fenced enclosure. The Claimant, Mr McQuaker, sued the zoo proprietor, Mr Goddard, seeking damages under the strict liability rule that applies to keepers of wild animals (ferae naturae).
The key legal question was whether a camel is legally a wild animal—triggering automatic strict liability regardless of the keeper’s prior knowledge—or a domesticated animal (mansuetae naturae), where liability depends on proof that the keeper knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous tendencies.
At first instance, Branson J heard detailed evidence from witnesses experienced with camels. Experts described camels as long-domesticated creatures used for transport, milk, and labour across many cultures. The judge also took judicial notice of historical and encyclopedic sources confirming camels’ worldwide status. He ruled that camels are domesticated animals as a matter of law, not dependent on the behaviour of any individual camel, its rarity in England, or local circumstances.
Without evidence that this particular camel had vicious propensities known to the defendant, the claim failed.
The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Scott, MacKinnon, and Clauson LJJ unanimously upheld the decision. They emphasised that the classification of an animal as wild or domestic is a question of law decided at the level of the genus or species, based on global historical evidence rather than local familiarity or individual traits. Lord Justice Scott observed that a camel “is, in all countries, a domestic animal, an animal that has become trained to the uses of man, and a fortiori accustomed to association with man.”
The court noted that no truly wild camels exist anywhere in the world, with domestication stretching back millennia in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.
This ruling diverged sharply from everyday intuition in England, where camels are seen as exotic zoo creatures rather than everyday domestic animals like horses or cattle. Nevertheless, English law prioritised the species’ established global domestication over its unusual presence in the UK. The decision confirmed that camels fall outside the strict liability category for wild animals, requiring only ordinary negligence or proven knowledge of danger (scienter) for liability to arise.
McQuaker v Goddard continues to be cited as the leading (!?) authority that camels are legally domesticated, illustrating how legal categorisation can rest on broad historical criteria rather than contemporary practicality or suitability for particular settings, such as residential homes.
Renters Rights Act 2025 Pets in Rental Properties
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025, receiving Royal Assent on 27 October 2025, introduces sweeping changes to England’s private rented sector. Link to the section here – note the definition of “pet”
“pet” means an animal kept by a person mainly for—
(a) personal interest,
(b) companionship,
(c) ornamental purposes, or
(d) any combination of paragraphs (a) to (c);”
From 1 May 2026, private tenants gain a statutory right to request permission to keep a pet. Blanket “no pets” clauses in tenancy agreements become unenforceable. Landlords must consider written requests individually and cannot unreasonably refuse consent. They are required to respond in writing within 28 days. Reasonable grounds for refusal include property size constraints, risk of structural damage, excessive wear and tear, potential neighbour nuisance, or restrictions imposed by a superior lease.
Reasonable Limits Tenant Pet Requests UK
These changes aim to support pet-owning tenants while preserving essential landlord protections. However, the absence of clear boundaries on what constitutes a reasonable pet request would quickly lead to unworkable situations that threaten property condition, and the overall availability of rental housing.
Camel Pet in Flat Absurdity Landlord Refusal
Consider a typical one-bedroom urban flat. Suppose a tenant requests permission to keep a camel (as in the McQuaker v Goddard case!), relying on the legal classification established that camels are domesticated animals as a matter of law. If landlords had virtually no discretion to refuse requests involving any legally domesticated animal, they would be compelled to allow this arrangement.
The consequences become immediately impractical and extreme. A camel, would crush flooring not designed to bear such loads. It would require vast space for movement, far beyond what even the largest flat provides. Feeding demands—large quantities of hay and water—would be impossible to meet in a standard residential kitchen. The volume of waste produced daily would overwhelm normal sanitation systems, creating severe odour and hygiene problems. Noise from the animal’s bellowing would disturb neighbours, likely breaching quiet enjoyment obligations. Allergens, dust and hair would pose health risks to occupants and visitors alike.
Attempting to house a camel indoors would cause rapid and extensive damage, render the property uninhabitable for future tenants, and create ongoing welfare concerns for the animal itself in a confined urban environment. If such requests had to be granted, many landlords would simply withdraw properties from the rental market or significantly increase rents to offset the anticipated costs and risks.
Landlord Refusal Pets Reasonable Grounds 2026
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 should endeavour these extreme outcomes by permitting landlords to refuse consent on reasonable grounds. Refusals based on an animal’s size, space requirements, potential for damage, or general suitability for residential premises remain valid. This allows approval of common, low-impact pets (cats, dogs, small caged animals) while reasonably declining requests for oversized or inappropriate species such as camels. No doubt a few cases will turn into a circus. No pun intended.