1. If you are or have been made aware, what is the current living status of your ex-girlfriend?
This is an open question aimed to determine whether or not the first element of trespass to land, title to sue, can be satisfied. The relevant authority for this element is Newington v Windeyer. It is clear that the ex-girlfriend lives on the property – as proven in the telephone message provided. However, it is necessary to prove exclusive possession of the land. It must be established if the client was aware of the ex-girlfriend’s living arrangements: if she is a tenant, owner or a licensee. If she is a licensee, she is merely given permission to reside on the property from the owner and would not have the entitlement to sue for this action. …show more content…
Was it the case that the ex-girlfriend had not in fact given you implied or verbal consent to kick the balls into her property?
This is a closed question intended to assess if the client was given permission by the ex-girlfriend or not to kick the balls into the garden. This is to establish if there was direct unauthorised interference with land, the second element of trespass to land. The relevant authority for this element is TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning. It is clear that the action is direct – balls were kicked into the property – as proven by the facts of the telephone message. However determining if this direct interference is authorised or not by the ex-girlfriend is necessary to completely satisfy the second element.
3. Would it be correct to say that it was your intention to kick the balls into the garden of the ex-girlfriend’s house?
This is a closed question used to determine if the action to kick the balls were involuntary; this would disprove the third element of trespass to land, concerning fault. The relevant authority for this element is Public Transport Commission of NSW v Perry. If it is established on the facts that his action was voluntary – whereby intention or negligent are evident – fault may be …show more content…
Did you consent, in any way, to this application of force?
This is a closed question designed to determine if the second element of battery, absence of consent, can be satisfied. The relevant authority for this element is set in the Criminal Code at section 245. If the client consented to the application of force, the ex-girlfriend may have a case in the defence of consent. The relevant authority for this defence is Barker v R.
6. With exception to the action you took to kick the balls into the garden, did you direct anything further, verbally or physically, at any point in time, which may have prompted the ex-girlfriend to tackle you?
This is a closed question which has been constructed for two reasons: to draw out any underlying details about the incident, concerning actions of both the ex-girlfriend and the client; and to also establish whether or not defences to trespass such as necessity , self-defence , defence of another , or provocation are required. 7. What form of physical injury, or financial loss, was incurred to you as a direct result of being
This is an open question aimed to determine whether or not the first element of trespass to land, title to sue, can be satisfied. The relevant authority for this element is Newington v Windeyer. It is clear that the ex-girlfriend lives on the property – as proven in the telephone message provided. However, it is necessary to prove exclusive possession of the land. It must be established if the client was aware of the ex-girlfriend’s living arrangements: if she is a tenant, owner or a licensee. If she is a licensee, she is merely given permission to reside on the property from the owner and would not have the entitlement to sue for this action. …show more content…
Was it the case that the ex-girlfriend had not in fact given you implied or verbal consent to kick the balls into her property?
This is a closed question intended to assess if the client was given permission by the ex-girlfriend or not to kick the balls into the garden. This is to establish if there was direct unauthorised interference with land, the second element of trespass to land. The relevant authority for this element is TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning. It is clear that the action is direct – balls were kicked into the property – as proven by the facts of the telephone message. However determining if this direct interference is authorised or not by the ex-girlfriend is necessary to completely satisfy the second element.
3. Would it be correct to say that it was your intention to kick the balls into the garden of the ex-girlfriend’s house?
This is a closed question used to determine if the action to kick the balls were involuntary; this would disprove the third element of trespass to land, concerning fault. The relevant authority for this element is Public Transport Commission of NSW v Perry. If it is established on the facts that his action was voluntary – whereby intention or negligent are evident – fault may be …show more content…
Did you consent, in any way, to this application of force?
This is a closed question designed to determine if the second element of battery, absence of consent, can be satisfied. The relevant authority for this element is set in the Criminal Code at section 245. If the client consented to the application of force, the ex-girlfriend may have a case in the defence of consent. The relevant authority for this defence is Barker v R.
6. With exception to the action you took to kick the balls into the garden, did you direct anything further, verbally or physically, at any point in time, which may have prompted the ex-girlfriend to tackle you?
This is a closed question which has been constructed for two reasons: to draw out any underlying details about the incident, concerning actions of both the ex-girlfriend and the client; and to also establish whether or not defences to trespass such as necessity , self-defence , defence of another , or provocation are required. 7. What form of physical injury, or financial loss, was incurred to you as a direct result of being