Summary GDL Tort Law Distinction level full revision notes
12 views 0 purchase
Course
GDL
Institution
GDL
These are the revision notes I produced for the GDL Tort Law paper (as taught at Oxford Brookes in 2021/22. I achieved a Distinction both on this paper, and overall.
The notes run to 77 pages and nearly 30k words, covering the following topics:
Trespass to the person
Trespass to land
Occupi...
Trespass to the person
There are 3 torts which fall under this topic:
Assault
Battery
False Imprisonment
These apply in interesting ways in police and prison cases.
Assault
Definition: assault is an act of the defendant that causes to the claimant reasonable apprehension of
the immediate infliction of a battery on them by the defendant.
Assault and battery would most commonly occur together, though it is possible for there to be one
yet not the other.
There is no requirement for there to be physical contact; what is relevant is causing the reasonable
apprehension, not an actual one, or even an actual risk of one. To point an unloaded gun at someone
is an assault.
Stephens v Myers (1840): an unsuccessful battery can still be an assault
The defendant attempted to hit the claimant, but the blow was intercepted by a third party.
The defendant was still liable for assault.
Thomas v National Union Mineworkers (1986): the apprehension must be of immediate battery
Striking miners made threatening gestures towards working miners going, who were
protected by police barricades.
Because there was no apprehension of immediate battery, since the barricades were
obviously protecting the working miners, there was no assault.
Read v Coker (1853): words can turn an innocent act into an assault
The defendant, amongst others, gathered around the plaintiff and rolled up their sleeves,
while threatening to break the claimant’s neck.
The defendant’s words turned the otherwise innocent act of rolling up his sleeves into an
assault, since it created reasonable apprehension.
R v Ireland (1997): words can be sufficient
Words can by themselves constitute an assault.
Lord Steyn: the requirement of immediacy might be taken to mean within a minute or two
(so words spoken over the phone could constitute an assault, if this is the case).
Tuberville v Savage (1669): words can negate an act which is otherwise assault
The defendant put his hand on his sword, though at the same time emphasised that he was
not going to do anything. (If it were not assize time).
Hence words can negate what would otherwise be an assault.
Battery
Definition: battery is the intentional and direct application of force to another person.
,Connor v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire
A football supporter was hit by a police truncheon, without legal justification, hence
amounting to battery.
How do we distinguish battery from mere physical contact in the course of ordinary life?
Cole v Turner (1704): Lord Chief Justice Holt: the least touching of another in anger is
battery.
Collins v Wilcock (1984): Lord Justice Gough wrote that bodily contact was not actionable if it
was generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life.
Wilson v Pringle (1987): the court spoke of ‘hostile touching’, i.e. where the defendant
wilfully interferes with the claimant in a way to which they are known to object.
The intention required relates to the application of force, not the injury which might result (Wilson v
Pringle).
Ball v Axten (1866): transferred malice
There can be transferred malice resulting in battery. The defendant tried to hit a dog, but
instead hit the owner who was trying to protect the dog.
The court held the defendant was liable in battery against the claimant.
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984)
A defendant was liable in battery for hitting the claimant with a plastic bullet which was
intended to hit a different individual.
Blake v Galloway (2004): implied consent in the context of participating in an activity
The claimant and defendant were playing a game involving throwing bits of bark at each
other. The claimant threw a piece of bark at the defendant, which hit the claimant in the
eye, causing injury.
The court held that there was here a defence of consent. Where there is inevitably contact
in the course of a game, participants impliedly consent to harm following from this.
Wood v DPP (2008): police officers acting beyond powers
The police were called to a bar, and the police accosted Wood, who matched the description
of a man who had been causing damage. Wood denied being the guilty party, and tried to
get away, but the officer restrained him (Wood assaulted him to try to get away).
The court held that the police officer, in restraining Wood without arresting him, he was
acting outside of his powers, and committing a battery.
Gravil v Carroll (2008): battery can take place in context of organised activity
There was a fight between players on opposite teams. The defendant punched the claimant,
causing him a facial fracture.
The court held that this was a battery, and that the club was vicariously liable, as the action
took place in the course of an employee’s duties.
Pritchard v Co-operative Group (2011)
, Pritchard was denied a day off from work, and so went into work to confront the manager,
who took hold of her arms, and she then bit him. The Co-op sacked her. She alleged that the
manager’s assault had brought about an inability to work.
The court held that the defence of contributory negligence (on the part of Pritchard) was not
available to the torts of assault and battery.
Flint v Tittensor (2015): level of violence is important for defence of self-defence
The claimant suffered head injuries after being thrown from the bonnet of a moving car
driven by the defendant. The defendant argued self-defence.
The court held that the level of violence was retaliatory not defensive, and so rejected the
defence of self-defence.
Browne v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
A man received a knee injury after not complying with a police officer’s request to search
him.
The court held that this amounted to assault and battery, since the officer used unnecessary
and unreasonable force.
McCarthy v Chief Constable of Merseyside (2016)
A police officer discharged a taser during a fast-moving response to a violent incident,
leading to the defendant suffering cardiac arrest.
The court decided that the level of force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
False imprisonment
Definition: the infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly allowed by law.
In Collins v Wilcock (1984) it was defined as the unlawful imposition of restraint on another’s
freedom of movement.
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation (1920)
Approved the definition from ‘Terms de le Lay’ (1520) which defined it as: ‘imprisonment is
the restraint of a man’s liberty, whether it be in the open field or in the stocks or cage in the
street, or in the man’s own house, as well as in a common jail, and in all these places, the
party is restrained is said to be a prisoner, so long as he has not his liberty to go at all times
to all places, whither he will’.
There is no length of time required, though the restraint must be total:
Bird v Jones (1845): A reasonable escape route was available, and so there was no false
imprisonment.
Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company (1910)
If an occupier places reasonable conditions on those using a premises, this will not amount
to false imprisonment.
If a company clearly places a reasonable requirement to pay before leaving, then it is not
false imprisonment to prevent someone from leaving if they have not paid.
Herd v Weardale Steel (1915)
, A miner refused to work a mine he considered to be unsafe, and demanded to be taken to
the surface, but was not allowed to leave for 20 minutes (he was due to work for a further 5
hours).
The court found that there was a defence of consent; the miner’s contract did not give him
any right to be taken to the surface before the 5 hours elapsed.
While a somewhat problematic case, the fact that the mining company makes only an
omission is relevant.
Does someone need to be aware of their imprisonment, and try to oppose it, for the tort to arise?
Herring v Boyle (1834): suggested that they did, though this was in retrospect an incorrect
decision
Grainger v Hill (1838): even if someone did not realise that they were being detained in a
room, because they were unconscious in the room, they can still be falsely imprisoned
(though it will be relevant to the question of damages).
Murray v MoD (1988): UKHL: someone unaware of their false imprisonment would receive
only nominal damages.
R v Bournewood NHS Trust (1999): even though someone makes no attempt to leave, there
can be false imprisonment.
M v Hackney London Borough Council (2011): a failure to comply with the Mental Health Act
1983’s requirements gave rise to false imprisonment.
H v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (2013): an excessive use of force used in restraining
an autistic person who was putting themselves in danger was a false imprisonment.
Barkhuysen v Hamilton (2016): the defendant falsely reported to police that the claimant
had been seen having sex with a pig, so the police arrested the claimant. The court held that
by making an unfounded allegation which directly and predictably resulted in the restraint,
the defendant was liable for false imprisonment.
Police and Prison cases
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (and associated codes of practice) give the police powers
to make arrests, and so arrests made in line with these will not give rise to a tort of assault, battery
or false imprisonment, unless the force used in making the arrest was excessive, or there were no
reasonable grounds for making the arrest.
Lawrence v CC Dyfed and Powys (1983)
The suspect was arrested on suspicion of arson, and held in isolation for 21 hours except for
a brief interview.
The court held that the length of detention was unreasonable, and so there was a claim for
false imprisonment. The original arrest had been lawful.
Hougton v CC Greater Manchester (1986)
The claimant was arrested on suspicion of impersonating a police officer. He had been
spotted leaving a fancy dress party wearing a costume and carrying a truncheon.
There were no reasonable grounds for suspecting him of the offense, so there was a claim
for false imprisonment.
Treadaway v CC West Midlands (1994)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tombarnes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $24.78. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
