LAWS1100 Study Guide - Final Guide: Imperial Brands, Tobacconist, False Imprisonment
THE TORT OF TRESPASS
Committed when the Defendant interferes with the person or property of the plaintiff
• Three common forms of trespass
1. Trespass to land
2. Trespass to goods
3. Trespass to the person
• Defences:
o Accident (interference neither intentional nor negligent)
o Consent
o Necessity (protection from imminent and real harm)
o Self-defence (proportionate to threat)
o Defence of property
Trespass to Land
DESCRIPTION
• Trespass to land
o Defendant unlawfully enters, remains on or puts something on Plaintiff's land
• A person commits the tort of trespass to land if
o They interfere with another person's exclusive possession of land
o The interference is a direct result of the Def's actions
o The interference is either intentional or even though trespass was not intended, it was
negligent (unintentional but a voluntary act by the def to enter the pl's land)
o There is no consent or lawful Justification for the interference
REMEDIES
• An injunction to prevent the trespass of the airspace
• Unlikely that the court will award money
NOTES
• There are lawful reasons to enter someone else's land - the def can be lawfully justified
Case Law: Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (1957)
o FACTS:
• Imperial owned the freehold in a premises from which he ran a wholesale tobacco
business.
• He leased part of the premises to Kelsen who ran a tobacconist shop and had an
adjoining flat where he lived.
• Iperial Toao ereted a sig that protruded ito Kelses airspae four
inches.
o HELD:
• An injunction was granted to prevent the trespass of the airspace.
Trespass to Goods
DESCRIPTION
• Goods
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o Trespass against goods is an interference by the Defendant with goods in the possession
of the Plaintiff - such as taking or using goods without permission
• A person commits the tort of trespass to goods if:
o They interfere with another person's possession of good
o The interference is direct
o The interference is either intentional or negligent and unintentional
o There is no consent of the Def or Lawful justification for the interference
• Note:
o The Plaintiff does not have to be the owner of the goods, as long as they have rightful
possession of the goods at the time
o The Plaintiff foes not have to prove that there was any damage
Case Law: Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot (1946)
NOTES:
• Eg. You lend your car to someone to drive to a party on the condition that they don't drink
• They drink at the party
• Trespass has occurred - you do not need to prove that damage was done to the goods
Trespass to Person
Battery
DESCRIPTION
• Physical - as little as a touch
• A person commits the tort of battery (the actual application of physical force) if:
1. They cause some sort of physical interference with the body of another person
2. The cation is direct - directly causing contact with the body of another person
3. The act is either intentional or negligent - unintentional
4. There is no consent or lawful justification for the act
• Sometimes the smallest touch can amount to battery
• However, courts have held that a certain minimal level of physical contact in unavoidable in
daily life
Case Law: Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001]
o FACTS:
• Rixon played roulette at Star City after being banned.
• Employee confronted Rixon and detained him until the police arrived. In doing so,
the eploee had to plae his had o ‘ios shoulder.
• Rixon sued Star City in the tort of battery.
o HELD:
• The phsial otat as to get ‘ios attetio.
• It as deeed that this otat is geerall aeptale i the ordiar odut of
dail life.
• Star City was not liable.
REMEDIES
• Injunction
• Financial remedies
NOTES
• Difficult in the case of law enforcement - excessive force (?)
• Playing sport eg of consent
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Assault
DESCRIPTION
• The anticipation of physical force
• A person commits the tort of assault (the treat of the actual application of physical force) if:
1. They cause another person to develop a reasonable apprehension of direct, imminent
and harmful or offensive physical contact
2. The act is direct
3. The act in intentional or negligent and unintentional
4. There is no consent or lawful justification for the act
• If a def makes carrying out a threat conditional upon the Pl complying with the Def's demand
(eg Johnny threatens to punch Simon unless he leaves) - the tort is committed
Case Law: Stevens v Myers (183C)
NOTES
• Assault and battery often occur at the same time
False Imprisonment
DESCRIPTION
• No reasonable means of escape
• A person commits the tort of false imprisonment (the complete deprivation of someone's
freedom of movement) if:
1. They cause another person to be totally restrained
2. The act is direct
3. The act is intentional or negligent - unintentional
4. There is no consent or lawful justification for the act
Case Law: Burton v Davies (1953)
o FACTS:
• Hitch-hiker picked up from road and driver of truck groped the hitch-hiker.
• Hitch-hiker demanded to be let out and was denied.
• Only means of escape was to jump from a moving truck.
o HELD:
• Means of escape must be without risk of injury.
• Courts deemed only means of escape would likely cause injury.
Case Law: Bird v Jones (1845)
o FACTS:
• Person was denied passage on a particular side of a bridge and then attempted to
force entry. Courts to decide whether a false imprisonment occurred.
o HELD:
• Means of escape must be reasonable without risk of injury, or a serious
inconvenience.
• Courts held Plaitiff as erel ostruted.
NOTES
• Can also go with assault and battery
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
