MLL213 Study Guide - Final Guide: Equitable Remedy, Consumer Complaint, Ejectment
24 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Topic 3 Trespass to Land
TRESSPASS TO LAND
Tespass to lad potets the iteest of the plaitiff i aitaiig the ight to elusie
possession of her (or his) place of residence, free from uninvited physical intrusion by
stages
1. Locus Standi (standing to sue)
a. P must be in exclusive possession of the land: NSW v Ibbett
b. Normally established by proof of a proprietary interest (ownership,
leasehold)
c. Tenant vs landlord? Tenant has exclusive possession
i. Unless grants an exclusive right to possession
2. An interference with the land
a. An interference
i. Entry without authority: NSW V Ibbett
ii. Entry for an impermissible purpose3
iii. Refusal to leave after the license to remain on the premises has been
withdrawn and a reasonable time has elapsed.
Halliday v Neville
• D was driving without a license and pulled into his driveway. P subsequently arrested him on
his property and D attempted to sue him for trespass and thus an unlawful arrest.
• It was held that because the driveway was open and at the front of the house, there was an
implied right to enter.
Lincoln Hunt v Willesee
• Implied license limited to existing clients and those who are seeking info for bonafide
purposes. Lincoln Hunt Australia v Willesee: consumer complaint reporter and tv crew
eteed Ps peises to ake ideotape ad uestio people thee. Held: tespass. Aaded
damages but not injunction (equitable remedy) to tape if iustaes ae suh to ake
the publication unconscionable.
Plenty v Dillian (1991):
• Ps daughte as i toule ith the polie. He ke the ated to gie his daughte a
summons so he revoked his authority for letting the police onto his land. The police did so
anyway.
• Thus, D was required to pay damages to P for trespass onto his land.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Tenant has exclusive possession: unless grants an exclusive right to possession, an interference with the land, an (cid:858)interference(cid:859, entry without authority: nsw v ibbett. P(cid:859)s daughte(cid:396) (cid:449)as i(cid:374) t(cid:396)ou(cid:271)le (cid:449)ith the poli(cid:272)e. he k(cid:374)e(cid:449) the(cid:455) (cid:449)a(cid:374)ted to gi(cid:448)e his daughte(cid:396) a summons so he revoked his authority for letting the police onto his land. Thus, d was required to pay damages to p for trespass onto his land: entry for an impermissible purpose3. Halliday v neville: d was driving without a license and pulled into his driveway. P subsequently arrested him on his property and d attempted to sue him for trespass and thus an unlawful arrest. It was held that because the driveway was open and at the front of the house, there was an implied right to enter. Implied license limited to existing clients and those who are seeking info for bonafide purposes.
