LAW 1507 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: False Imprisonment, Full Intention, William Blackstone
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Arkin v Ben possible false imprisonment
Arkin is complaining that Ben’s actions constituted false imprisonment, because he was
unable to get out of his office because a dining table from Ben’s business blocked his front
door. The relevant law in this circumstance is the tort of false imprisonment which requires
➢ A voluntary Act
➢ Total deprivation of freedom of movement
➢ Absence of lawful justification
In this case as Arkin was able to leave his premises through the back door. In the case Bird v
Jones (1845) 115 ER 668 it was established that the deprivation of freedom of movement was
not satisfied as there was another reasonable escape route. Arkin was not deprived of all
reasonable escape therefore this case is not likely to satisfy the elements of false
imprisonment.
Cleo v Arkin possible assault
The issue in this case is that the defendant had raised his arm and said to the plaintiff, “if
there weren’t so many witnesses around I would make you pay for locking me in there”. The
plaintiff could argue that this was assault. The applicable law in this incident to satisfy assault
requires
➢ Direct act or statement by the defendant
➢ Apprehension of imminent physical interference to the plaintiff by the defendant
➢ Accompanied by fault
While the defendant’s statement was directed at the plaintiff, there was no intended imminent
threat. This can be supported with the decision in the case Tuberville v Savage (1669) 86 ER
684. It was concluded there was no judgment for the plaintiff, because it was clear there was
no imminent threat. If the defendant had said, ‘I will’ rather than ‘if there weren’t other’s
around’, then Cleo could sue for assault. Cleo should be advised, that her proposed action
will unlikely succeed.
Ben v Arkin possible assault
Ben has come seeking advice on a possible claim of assault. He was sent threats via email by
the plaintiff. The elements of assault as listed above (in Cleo’s situation) are satisfied. Not
only was the defendants act voluntary, it was also directed at the plaintiff and intended to
cause apprehension. In reference to Salveski v State of Victoria [2010] VSC 441 it was
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Arkin is complaining that ben"s actions constituted false imprisonment, because he was unable to get out of his office because a dining table from ben"s business blocked his front door. The relevant law in this circumstance is the tort of false imprisonment which requires. In this case as arkin was able to leave his premises through the back door. Jones (1845) 115 er 668 it was established that the deprivation of freedom of movement was not satisfied as there was another reasonable escape route. Arkin was not deprived of all reasonable escape therefore this case is not likely to satisfy the elements of false imprisonment. The issue in this case is that the defendant had raised his arm and said to the plaintiff, if there weren"t so many witnesses around i would make you pay for locking me in there . The plaintiff could argue that this was assault. The applicable law in this incident to satisfy assault requires.
