Cases In Torts

Front 1

ACN v Chetcuti

Back 1

The plaintiff spit to the two officers who worked in the railway station and then as a result of being afraid of the retaliation, the plaintiff ran and was hurt by himself.

Where the mental element in assault is an intention on the part of defendant to cause the plaintiff to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force, the requisite intention is subjective, not objective.
Further, the plaintiff's apprehension of the battery and assault must be a reasonable one.

Front 2

ACQ v Cook

Back 2

The plaintiff was hurt by the flying conductor as a result of the collision of two aircrafts.

Even the injury was the consequence of the collision of the aricrafts, the defendants should be liable. (s 10(1) of the Aircraft Act 1999)

Front 3

Bahner v Marwest Hotel

Back 3

The plaintiff was false imprisoned because he refused to pay for the second wine. It was impossible to drink the wine within 10 minutes without getting drunk.

Both consent and lawful justification are important in judging whether there is a false imprisonment.

Front 4

Balmain New Ferry v Robertson

Back 4

The plaintiff refused to pay the one penny at the exit of the ferry company because he thought he had not taken the ferry.

There is no false imprisonment where a person has consented to a restraint on liberty. Query whether the occupier of land may impose a condition, such as the payment of a sum of money, for allowing a person on the land to leave.

Front 5

Barton v Armstrong

Back 5

The plaintiff alleged that he had been threatened by the defendant, though on phone, which should be regarded as an assault.

Word spoken over the telephone may constitute assault where those words cause the listener to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.

Front 6

Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore

Back 6

The defendant, Star Energy, carried out drilling operations licensed by Crown. Three wells drilled by the defendant penetrated beneath the claimant's land at a depth of 800-2800 feet.

An intrusion beneath land may constitute trespass even though the intrusion occurs at a depth beyond the effective control of the occupier of the land.

Front 7

Bunyan v Jordan

Back 7

The plaintiff happened to see a revolver on the defendant's desk and later heard him say that he was going to shoot himself or someone. A shot was then heard. The plaintiff alleged assault.

Under the principle in Wilkinson v Downton, the defendant's wilful act must be such as to cause harm to a "normal" person in the plaintiff's position unless the "peculiarly susceptible" disposition of the plaintiff is known to the defendant.

Front 8

Coco v The Queen

Back 8

Pursuant to an approval given by a judge for the use of a listening device in connection with a criminal investigation, police officers entered, without any other authorisation or the knowledge or consent of the occupier, to install a listening device to record Mr. Coco's private conversation and later successfully made the conviction of Coco.

Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.

Front 9

Collins v Wilcock

Back 9

Two police officers on duty suspected two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. For further investigation, one of the police caught up the uncooperative woman and took hold of her arm in order to detain her.

Every person's body is inviolate. It has long been established that any touching or another person, however, slight, may amount to a battery. The breadth of the principle reflects the fundamental nature of the interest so protected. The effect is that everybody is protected not only against physical injury but against any form of physical molestation.

Front 10

Di Napoli v New Beach Apartments

Back 10

The plaintiff and the defendant were adjoining occupiers of the land. In the course of constructing a building on its land, the defendant placed rock anchors which projected beneath the plaintiff's land and were visible in the excavation on the defendant's land.

Trespass to land may be committed beneath the surface. It's not a defence to say that the plaintiff is not suffering financial loss by the defendant's use. For subterranean rights, a person has substantial control over land underneath his or her soil for a considerable depth.

Front 11

Fontin v Katapodis

Back 11

The defendant mistook the plaintiff as a theft and therefore both parties had a fight. To self-defence, the defendant threw an off-cut glass to the plaintiff and hurt him seriously.

Although provocation is no defence or ground for the reduction of compensatory damages in an action for assault or battery, provocation may negative or reduce an award of exemplary damages. Where force is used in self defence, the degree of force must be proportionate to the threat to which the defendant is expressed.

Front 12

Gray v Motor Accident Commission

Back 12

A young man was hurt seriously by a motor car driver. As a result, the driver was sentenced to 7 year imprisonment. The young man claimed for exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are not to be awarded where the tortfeasor has been convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to "substantial punishment" in respect of the conduct constituting the tort. (Conscious wrongdoing by the wrongdoer)

Front 13

Halliday v Nevill

Back 13

One of the constables, Navill, enters the open driveway without the permission of the occupier, in order to arrest the suspicious disqualified driver.

Trespass to land comprises a direct interference without lawful authority. The occupier may expressly or impliedly authorise entry or revoke that authority.

Front 14

Henry v Thompson

Back 14

The plaintiff recovered damages against the three defendants, who were police officers had acted in conscious and contumelious disregard for the plaintiff's right and in a high handed fashion with malice. For example, one of them had jumped up and down the head and shoulders of the plaintiff, and another had urinated on his stomach.

Aggravated damages may be awarded as a compensation for conduct which causes emotional hurt, insult and humiliation to the plaintiff.

Front 15

In Re F

Back 15

The plaintiff's daughter was a mental illness person who was not capable to show consent to her sterilization operation. The plaintiff sought a declaration.

The principle of necessity may justify medical or surgical treatment, which otherwise would constitute trespass to the person, when the patient is incapable of giving his consent or her consent by reason of lack of consciousness in an emergency situation or mental disability. However, application of this principle is accompanied by stringent safeguards requiring that the proposed treatment be in the best interest of patient in order to preserve his or her life, health or well-being.

Front 16

LJP Investments v Howard Chia Investments

Back 16

For personal use, the defendant erected scaffolding along 16 meters of the boundary between his own property and the one belonged to the plaintiffs'.

Trespass may be committed by an interference to airspace above the occupier's land

Front 17

Myer Store v Soo

Back 17

Soo was mistook as a thief by the Myer and she was took to a room for investigation. In addition, one of the security guy obtained a warrant to search Soo's house. Though nothing was found, the defendants denied their false imprisonment to Soo all the time on the court.

A substantial award of aggravated damages for false imprisonment is justified where, after the tort was committed, the defendant persists with the assertion that he or she was justified in detaining the plaintiff.

Front 18

Newington v Windeyer

Back 18

For many years, the plaintiff had used the area, the Grove, to the exclusion of others, as a common garden. The defendant was the owner of the adjoining land of the Grove and he replaced the fence which ran along the western boundary of the Grove with one gates giving access from her land to the Grave.

Actual possession, not ownership as such, confers title to sue in trespass and the plaintiff must prove actual possession of the land at the date of trespass. Possession is a question of fact.

Front 19

Platt v Nutt

Back 19

The plaintiff's hand was hurt by the closing door, however, it should not be hurt if the plaintiff hadn't put out her hand to impede the passage of the closing door.

Onus of proof of the trespassory act is an issue distinct from onus of proof of fault. The plaintiff in trespass must prove that the defendant committed the trespassory act of which the plaintiff complains.

Front 20

Plenty v Dillon

Back 20

The defendant entered the plaintiff's farm without the plaintiff's consent to serve a summon on their 14 years old daughter.

There are only limited exceptions to the fundamental common law principle that entry onto land without the authority of the occupier is a trespass. The action in trespass to land serves to vindicate an occupier's rights to exclusive use and occupation.

Front 21

Rixon v Star City

Back 21

The plaintiff was a casino operator who received an exclusion order from the defendant. The plaintiff was identified by one of the employee of the defendant and was asked for identity. The employee just put one hand on the plaintiff's shoulder without using more force.

Physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life does not constitute battery.
Assault requires an intention to create in another person an apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive conduct.

Front 22

Rodrigues v Ufton

Back 22

The plaintiff was the owner of property comprising a dwelling house and back yard which was in possession and occupation of her tenants. The defendant, who was the owner of the adjoining property, entered the plaintiff's land, destroyed a part of existing fence and erected a new one which excluded the plaintiff from enjoyment of a disputed strip of land.

The occupier is the only person with title to sue for trespass. However, an owner out of possession may bring an action on the case in respect of damages to the owner's reversionary interest.

Front 23

Scott v Shepherd

Back 23

The defendant Shepherd threw a lighted squib into a crowded market-house. In order to remove danger, Willis and Ryal picked up the squib and threw it away one by one. Unfortunately, the plaintiff Scott was stricken by the squib and lost sight in one eye.

The injury received by the plaintiff arises from the force of the original act of the defendant, therefore, a direct injury and can be maintainable in trespass.

Front 24

South Australia v Lempard-Trevorrow

Back 24

The plaintiff was separated from his natural mother and was fostered by the State for ten years.

The plaintiff's awareness of deprivation of liberty is not an element of the tort of false imprisonment. However, the care and protection given by the carer of a child is not a deprivation of the child's liberty in the sense required to constitute false imprisonment.

The fact that a plaintiff is not aware of a restrain on him or her, or is not physically able to exercise his or her freedom of movement, does not mean that wrongful imprisonment cannot be made out.

Front 25

State of NSW v Ibbett

Back 25

Two plain-clothes police officers entered a house late one night without lawful justification. One sought to arrest the respondent's son and in addition, one of the guy pointed out a gun at the respondent.

Torts protect the interest of the plaintiff in maintaining the right to exclusive possession of her place of residence, free from uninvited physical intrusion by strangers.

Aggravated damage are a form of general damages, given by way of compensation for injury to the plaintiff, which may be intangible, resulting from the circumstances and manner of the wrongdoing.

Front 26

Symes v Mahon

Back 26

A police constable asked the plaintiff to go with him to attend an investigation. Though there seems no restraint on the person and the no force imposed. The action of false imprisonment was still maintainable.

False imprisonment does not require the application of physical force by the defendant to the plaintiff. it is sufficient if the plaintiff has submitted completely to the control of the defendant.

Front 27

TCN Channel Nine v Anning

Back 27

The defendant entered the plaintiff's premises through an unlock door and took films for the plaintiff's house. They left immediately upon the plaintiff asked them to go. However, the films were broadcast without the permission.

There is no implied licence to enter land in use as business premises for the purpose of filming, as distinct from requesting permission to film, the occupier's activities on the land. the test for recovery of consequential damages after trespass to land, an intentional tort, is whether the damages are nature and probable consequence of the tort.

Front 28

Venning v Chin

Back 28

The plaintiff suffered personal injury when she was struck by a car while crossing a public road.

As a general rule, in trespass the onus is on the defendant to disprove fault. However, in trespass for injury caused in a highway accident, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

Front 29

Weaver v Ward

Back 29

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had shot and wounded him during a military training exercise.

There is no liability in trespass where the trespassory act was committed without fault by the defendant.

Front 30

Bird v Holbrook

Back 30

The plaintiff was shot by a spring gun which was set to catch any intending thief.

A person who does an act intending to cause injury to another person may be liable in damages in an action on the case where the injury was an indirect consequence of the act.

Front 31

Carrier v Bonham

Back 31

The defendant was a metal illness person who tried to suicide on a bus. The bus driver suffered nervous shock as a result.

The phrase "calculated to cause harm" under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton means objectively "likely to have that effect" rather than "intended to have that effect".

Front 32

Hutchins v Maughan

Back 32

Some bites were laid by the defendant along the creek. The plaintiff took his gods down along the creek and the dogs picked up baits and died.

In applying the settled distinction between trespass and case, an interference with the plaintiff will be direct when it follows so immediately in terms of causation upon the defendant's act as to be part of the act.

Front 33

Nationwide News v Naidu

Back 33

The plaintiff was a contractor working in the defendant's premise who suffered psychiatric injury during the employment.

The Wilkinson v Downton line of authority provides a basis of claim where harassment, racial vilification and personal abuse cause psychiatric injury.

Front 34

Wilkinson v Downton

Back 34

The plaintiff suffered nervous shock by virtue of a joke told by the defendant, where she heard her husband had been smashed up in an accident.

A person who wilfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff, including psychiatric injury, is liable to the plaintiff in damages for the harm inflicted.

Front 35

Williams v Holland

Back 35

The horse and cart of the plaintiff were struck with great violence by the gig and the horse of the defendant, which led to great hurt to the plaintiff's son and daughter.

When the plaintiff is injured by the defendant's direct (or immediate) act, the plaintiff may elect to bring an action on the case (rather than trespass) provided that the defendant's act is negligent. However, where the defendant's act is both direct and intentional, the only cause of action available to the plaintiff is trespass.

Front 36

William v Miloton

Back 36

The plaintiff claimed to recover damages from personal injuries caused directly by the defendant in negligence.

The principle in Williams v Holland is part of Australian law.

Front 37

Holmes v Mather

Back 37

The defendant's horse became unmanageable though the servant had tried his best to control it. The defendant was asked not to interfere with it and so did he.

If the act that does an injury is an act of direct force vi et armis, trespass is the proper remedy (if there is any remedy) where the act is wrongful, either as being wilful or as being the result of negligence. Where the act is not wrongful for either of these reason, no action is maintainable, though trespass would be the proper form of action if it were wrongful.

Front 38

Parramatta City Council v Lutz

Back 38

A house owner repeatedly complained to the local Municipal Council about the derelict condition of a property adjacent to her own. Due to delay in the execution of a demolition order under the Local Government Act 1919, the plaintiff's property was destroyed by a fire commencing in the adjacent property.

As between the plaintiff and the defendant, considerations of reasonableness may require the defendant to pay compensatory damages amounting to the reasonable cost of reinstatement (rather than replacement) of a dwelling house destroyed as a result of the defendant's negligence.

Front 39

XL Petroleum (NSW) v Caltex Oil (Australia)

Back 39

The Caltex Oil company hired an industrial plumber to spike the tanks just before the plaintiff XL Petroleum obtained the possession of the premises.

In proceedings against two or more joint tortfeasors where all the tortfeasors are liable for compensatory damages, exemplary damages may be awarded against one (or more) but not necessarily all the tortfeasors. The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish and deter a defendant "for conduct showing a conscious and contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's right".