trespass
- Created by: natalia ailoaie
- Created on: 13-01-24 12:46
View mindmap
- trespass-requires only proof of an intentional act or omission, doesn't require proof of damage
- direct and indirect acts and intention
- trespass requires directness. a direct act or omission.
- stanley v Powell- held that there was no trespass in the absence of intention or negligence.
- fowler v lanning
- letang v Cooper
- trespass to land
- when a person enters or remains on land in the possession of another, or places objects on it, without permission or lawful activity.
- kelsen v imperial tobacco
- Conway v George wimpey- as long as the act/omission is deliberate, it doesn't matter that d was unaware of nay prohibition on entry
- kelsen v imperial tobacco- 'land' for this purpose incudes the airspace above and the subsoil below
- southwark London borough council v williams- defences to trespass to land include statutory authority and necessity. necessity must be about imminent threat to life or property, not social or public interest necessity
- trespass to the person
- assault- an intentional act which threatens violence, or produces in c a reasonable expectation of immediate unlawful force- Stephen v Myers
- tuberville v savage- c's fear of violence must be reasonable
- r v ireland; r v burstow
- battery- the direct and intentional application of force to another person without consent- Fagan v mpc
- mental state required for battery- Cole v turner- distinguish between contact which is part of everyday life and contact which ought to be considered battery.
- wilson v pringle- touch has to be hostile
- defences to assault and battery
- consent
- medical reatement- Chatterton v Gerson
- sport- r v billinshurst
- sado-masochism - r v brown
- self defence-the force used in response to threat was reasonable and proportionate- Cockcroft v smith
- necessity- where the force used is the minimum necessary to preserve life- Leigh v Gladstone
- consent
- false imprisoment- complete restriction of the complainant's freedom of movement without lawful excuse or justification-r v governor of brockhill prison
- bird v jones- the tort is not committed where the claimant has a reasonable alternative route
- meering v graham-white aviation- it doesn't matter that the claimant was unaware of the restriction on their freedom of movement
- robinson v Balmain new ferry company- it is not necessarily false imprisoment to impose a reasonable condition on a claimant before you allow them to leave
- assault- an intentional act which threatens violence, or produces in c a reasonable expectation of immediate unlawful force- Stephen v Myers
- Wilkinson v downtown- separate tort, like trespass, it requires intention, but is not actionable per se
- a person is liable if he wilfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm, and physical harm results
- o v a - three elements: a conduct elements; a mental element and a consequence element
- direct and indirect acts and intention
Comments
No comments have yet been made