Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Trespass types |
To the person To land To goods |
|
|
To the person |
Battery Assault False Imprisonment |
|
|
Intention |
All trespass require intention Not necessary that the harm or outcome is intended (Letang v Cooper) |
|
|
Actionable per se |
Proof of damage is not required Will be taken into account when calculating damages |
|
|
Battery |
- Intentional - Direct - Unlawful application of force - Without consent Can be a battery without assualt "theactual infliction of unlawful force on another person" Goff LJ (Collins v Wilcock) |
|
|
Intention in Battery |
Williams v Humphrey Transferred intent also applies (Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence) |
|
|
Direct |
Interpreted widely Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire DPP v K |
|
|
Application of force |
Must have some physical contact with the C or their clothes Kaye v Robertson = Shining a light into eyes would not suffice |
|
|
Without consent |
Ordinary social touching = presumed consent (Collins v Wilcock) Can be used as a defence to negate battery Wilson v Pringle = hostile intent no longer required |
|
|
Collins v Wilcock |
'Contact acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life.' |
|
|
Assault |
- Reasonably apprehend - Direct and immediate application of force Collins v Wilcock Goff LJ = "anact which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of (direct) immediate,unlawful, force on his person" |
|
|
Reasonably apprehend |
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers compare with Stephen v Myers |
|
|
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers |
Mineworkers being transported to the mine were being threatened by those on strike and who were behind a police cordon. Due to the cordon it was impossible to carry out the threat and could not be an assault. |
|
|
Stephen v Myers |
The D went to hit the Claimant but a person intervened and prevented him from doing so. If they had not intervened the act would have been carried out so it was reasonable to apprehend the use of force. |
|
|
Direct and immediate application of force |
Words may negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage) Early caselaw = words alone cannot be an assault (R v Meade) However, words can (R v Wilson) and so can silence (R v Ireland) |
|
|
False Imprisonment |
- The complete restraint of movement - Which is unlawful "The unlawfulimposition of constraint upon another's freedom of movement from a particularplace" Goff LJ Collins v Wilcock (The C doesn't need to be aware of the imprisonment Meering v Grahame-White Aviation) |
|
|
Complete restraint of movement |
No false imprisonment if there is a reasonable means of escape (Bird v Jones) reasonable or lawful conditions imposed on exit negate the tort as there is still a reasonable means of escape (Robinson v Balmain Ferry Co Ltd) |
|
|
Defences of false imprisonment |
- Lawful Authority - Necessity (Austin v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) |
|
|
Wilkinson v Downton |
The D falsely told the C that her husband had been in a very serious accident, and she then went on to suffer nervous shock. |
|
|
The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton |
The act was done intentionally, to cause harm indirectly. Must be a recognised psychological illness. (Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust) |
|
|
Defences to trespass to the person |
Consent Lawful authority Self-defence Necessity |
|
|
Self- defence |
Proportionate Reasonable (Lane v Holloway = was disproportionate) |
|
|
Necessity |
The act was done in response to threat of a greater harm F v West Berkshire Health Authority (Medical context) Protection of public safety (Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) |
|
|
Is contributory negligence a defence? |
Murphy v Culhane = it could be a defence where there was joint violence between the parties However, Murphy is no longer good law. It was overruled and cannot be a defence (Pritchard v Co-operative group) |
|
|
Remedies |
Damages Injunction Habeas corpus |
