Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Law On Trespass Overview

    Uploaded by

    SabaTariq000
    This document provides an overview of the five torts of trespass under English law: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to goods, and trespass to land. It outlines some key differences between trespass torts and claims of negligence. Trespass torts do not require the claimant to have suffered harm and involve the direct actions of the defendant against the claimant, rather than a failure to act. The document also discusses general issues that affect all trespass torts, such as intention, consent, necessity, and mistakes. It then examines specific issues relating to each individual trespass tort.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Law On Trespass Overview

    Uploaded by

    SabaTariq000
    26 views3 pages
    This document provides an overview of the five torts of trespass under English law: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to goods, and trespass to land. It outlines some key differences between trespass torts and claims of negligence. Trespass torts do not require the claimant to have suffered harm and involve the direct actions of the defendant against the claimant, rather than a failure to act. The document also discusses general issues that affect all trespass torts, such as intention, consent, necessity, and mistakes. It then examines specific issues relating to each individual trespass tort.

    Original Title

    Law on Trespass overview

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of the five torts of trespass under English law: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to goods, and trespass to land. It outlines some key differences between trespass torts and claims of negligence. Trespass torts do not require the claimant to have suffered harm and involve the direct actions of the defendant against the claimant, rather than a failure to act. The document also discusses general issues that affect all trespass torts, such as intention, consent, necessity, and mistakes. It then examines specific issues relating to each individual trespass tort.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Law On Trespass Overview

    Uploaded by

    SabaTariq000
    This document provides an overview of the five torts of trespass under English law: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to goods, and trespass to land. It outlines some key differences between trespass torts and claims of negligence. Trespass torts do not require the claimant to have suffered harm and involve the direct actions of the defendant against the claimant, rather than a failure to act. The document also discusses general issues that affect all trespass torts, such as intention, consent, necessity, and mistakes. It then examines specific issues relating to each individual trespass tort.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    THE LAW ON TRESPASS

    1. The five trespass torts: a quick overview

    (1) Battery 

    (2) Assault  Trespass to the person

    (3) False imprisonment 

    (4) Trespass to goods

    (5) Trespass to land (already covered in lectures)

    2. Differences from the tort of negligence

    2.1. No need for the claimant to have suffered harm (usually)


    Slater v Swann (1730) 3 Stra 872, 93 ER 906

    2.2. The need for the defendant to have acted directly against the claimant
    Arthur v Anker [1997] QB 564
    Hartley v Moxham (1842) 3 QB 701, 114 ER 675
    Buckle v Holmes [1926] 2 KB 125
    League Against Cruel Sports v Scott [1986] QB 240

    2.3. Not doing is no trespass


    Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732 (noted, Varuhas (2010) 69
    Cambridge Law Journal 438)

    2.4. Whether the defendant acted reasonably is irrelevant


    Weir, A Casebook on Tort, 10th ed (2004), 322: ‘no one in Britain, no one, can
    justify deliberately touching even a hair on [a claimant’s] head, or entering her
    garden – much less depriving her of her liberty – merely on the ground that it
    was reasonable to do so, or on the more insidious ground that he reasonably
    thought he was entitled to do so’ (emphasis in original).

    2.5. Recoverable harm

    3. General issues affecting the trespass torts

    3.1. Intention
    Smith v Stone (1647) Style 65, 82 ER 533
    Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426
    Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
    Wilson v Pringle [1987] 1 QB 237
    Re F [1990] 2 AC 1
    3.2. Consent

    3.2.1. Is consent always a defence?


    R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212

    3.2.2. Validity of consent


    Family Law Reform Act 1969, s 8
    Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112
    Chatterton v Gerson [1981] 1 QB 432
    KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2005] EWHC 2550

    3.2.3. Withdrawal of consent

    3.2.4. Consent to risk


    Blake v Galloway [2004] 1 WLR 2844
    Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company [1910] AC 295
    Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company [1915] AC 67
    Sunbolf v Alford (1838) 3 M & W 248, 150 ER 1135
    Tan, ‘A misconceived issue in the tort of false imprisonment’ (1981) 44
    Modern Law Review 166
    Arthur v Anker [1997] QB 564
    Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2000] 1 WLR 2383

    3.4. Necessity
    Gilbert v Stone (1647) Style 72, 82 ER 539
    Cross v Kirkby, The Times, 5 April 2000
    Criminal Law Act 1967, s 3
    Re F (mental patient: sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1
    Mental Capacity Act 2005
    B v An NHS Hospital Trust [2002] 2 All ER 449
    Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1993] Fam 95
    Re S (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1993] Fam 26
    St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam 26
    Re A (children) (conjoined twins: medical treatment) [2001] Fam 147
    Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] 1 AC 564

    3.5. Mistakes
    Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] 1 AC 962
    Percy v Hall [1997] QB 924
    R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19
    Quinland v Governor of Swaleside Prison [2003] QB 306

    4. Specific issues affecting the trespass torts

    4.1. Battery

    4.1.1. Acceptable contact


    Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172

    4.1.2. Disciplining children


    Education Act 1996, s 548
    Children Act 2004, s 58(3): ‘Battery of a child causing actual bodily
    harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the
    ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.’
    4.2. Assault
    Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3, 86 ER 684
    Thomas v NUM [1986] 1 Ch 20
    Mbasogo v Logo [2007] QB 846

    4.3. False imprisonment


    Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742, 115 ER 668
    R v Bournewood Community and Mental NHS Trust, ex p L [1999] 1 AC 458
    HL v United Kingdom (2005) 40 EHRR 32 (noted, Pedain (2005) 64 Cambridge
    Law Journal 11)
    R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58
    Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732

    5. An irrelevance: the tort in Wilkinson v Downton


    Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57
    Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2003] 3 All ER 932
    Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406

    You might also like