Tort Law
Trespass to the person
Assault
Assault is an act of the defendant that causes the claimant reasonable apprehension of
the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant.
● Words can be seen as assault, but they can also cause the claim of assault to be
weakened
Battery
Battery is the intentional and direct application of force to another person.
● There are some cases in which a battery charge cannot be applied, if there is
‘implied consent’ to the contact
False imprisonment
False imprisonment is the infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly
authorised by the law.
● Someone who is arrested by a police officer does not have a claim for false
imprisonment if there are reasonable grounds for the arrest and they do not use
unreasonable force; there would be a claim if the opposite occurred
● There is no claim if there is a reasonable means of escape
● You do not have to be aware of the fact that you are being falsely imprisoned to
be able to make a claim
● If someone’s been lawfully arrested, there can be a claim if they have been
detained for too long
Trespass to Land
● Clerk and Lindsell define trespass to land as “any unjustifiable intrusion by one
person upon land in the possession of another”.
● Winfield defines it as “unjustifiable interference with the possession of land”
● Trespass is actionable per se - you do not need to prove any damage to your
property to have a claim
Trespass to airspace and subsoil
Trespass to airspace states that flying over someone’s land (in their airspace) is the tort
of trespass to airspace, trespass to subsoil states that digging underneath someone’s
counts as trespass.
● If a crane moves over someone’s land, the owner of the land can get an injunction
against the crane to stop it coming within the airspace
● Civil aviation act 1982 - if you fly over someone’s property at a reasonable and
safe height, it is not trespass
● Digging underneath someone’s property can be counted as trespass to subsoil
○ Bocardo v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35, [2010] 3 WLR 654
,Tort Law
Direct interference and intention
Trespass to land is a direct interference to the land - if it is indirect it is the tort of
nuisance
● Smith v Stone [1647] Sty 65
Intention is whether or not the person intended or knew the consequences which would
occur as a direct result of their actions
● League Against Cruel Sports v Scott [1985] 2 All ER 489
Possession of land
You do not need to be present on the land to be in possession of it.
If you are a tenant on someone else’s land you are not seen to be in the possession of the
land.
If you are staying at a hotel for a significant period of time, it can be seen that you have
sufficient possession of land to sue for trespassing.
● Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland [1999] EGLR 153
Defences to trespass to land
● Police having a warrant to search a house
○ Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 QB 939
■ When someone is told to leave they have a reasonable amount of
time to leave the land before becoming a trespasser
■ Must be clear and unambiguous when telling someone to leave
● Snook v Mannion [1982] Crim LR 601
● Simply saying ‘fuck off’ is not clear or unambiguous
● Rights of way on the highway - have the right to pass and repass
○ Cannot stop and set up a tent
○ This law changed in the case of DPP v Jones [1999] 2 All ER 257 which
states there is a right of peaceful assembly on the highway
● Necessity
○ If you were going to save a child from drowning in a pond, you have a
defence of necessity even if the owner of the land did not give you
permission to come onto their land
■ Monsanto v Tilly [2000] Env LR 313
Remedies for trespass to land
● Damages (compensation)
○ Field Common v Elmbridge Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2079, [2009] 1
P&CR 1
○ Bocardo v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35, [2010] 3 WLR 654
● Injunctions/Orders for Possession of Land
○ An injunction is a court order to ensure they cannot come on your land
○ An order for possession of land is a court order stating who the land
belongs to
■ Secretary of State for Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11, [2009]
1 WLR 2780
■ Mayor of London v Hall [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2011] 1 WLR 504
,Tort Law
■ City of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160, [2012] 2 All ER
1039
■ Sheffield City Council v Fairhall [2017] EWHC 2121, [2017] WLR (D)
570
● Self help
○ Ancient remedy of self help can be used in cases which need immediate
action, however the owner of the land can only use reasonable force
■ Collins v Renison [1754] 1 Say 138
■ Burton v Winters [1993] 3 All ER 847, CA
Public and Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance
Public nuisance is “an activity or state of affairs that interferes with … the health, safety,
or comfort of the public at large” (Oxford Dictionary of Law)
Public nuisance is primarily a crime and generally dealt with by the criminal law,
however, an individual affected by a public nuisance may be able to sue in tort.
● An action by individual in tort is only available when the claimant has suffered
‘special damage’ over and above the other members of the community
● For a private person to sue for public nuisance they must have suffered special
damage
● Early authority for special damages can be seen in Iveson v Moore [1699]
Remedies for public nuisance are an injunction or damages
● “Can you claim for personal injury in a case of public nuisance?” - question B3 tort
exam
○ Damages may be awarded in public nuisance for personal injury and
economic loss
Private Nuisance
Private nuisance is “an activity or state of affairs that interferes with the use or
enjoyment of land or rights over land” (Oxford Dictionary of Law)
● Due to this being a tort to land, you cannot claim for personal injury
● Only a person with a proprietary interest in land affected by nuisance can claim.
○ Exclusive possession not ownership - eg. squatters
○ Illustrated in Khorasandjian v Bush
● Interference must normally be indirect and continuous, a single act will not
normally amount to a private nuisance
● To sue for private nuisance it must be an unreasonable interference with your
enjoyment/use of the land
Private nuisance may involve physical damage to the land. An occupier owes a general
duty to a neighbouring occupier in relation to hazards occurring on their land to take
reasonable steps to prevent or minimise the risk of damage to neighbouring property.
Private nuisance may involve unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of
land. Courts take various factors into account in assessing unreasonableness including
, Tort Law
time, place, locality, the claimant’s sensitivity, the utility of the defendant’s conduct, the
defendant’s malice, and whether effects are temporary or permanent.
● Barr v Biffa Waste Services [2012] EWCA Civ 312, [2012] 3 All ER 380
The defences which may be used for private nuisance:
● Prescription
○ If someone has been carrying out an activity for a substantial amount of
time (eg. 20 years) you are unable to claim due to it having been
undertaken for so long
■ You can sue if you move into the vicinity of the noise
● Statutory Authority
● Planning permission
Claimants in private nuisance may seek an injunction and/or damages, damages may not
be awarded in private nuisance for personal injury.
Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands v Fletcher is a tort to land, typically involving damage to land, however it is not
continuous. It is a strict liability tort, meaning you only have to prove that the tort
occurred, not necessarily that the possessor of the land directly caused it.
● “A person who, in the course of non-natural user of land, is held to be responsible
for the accumulation on it of anything likely to do harm if it escapes, is liable for
the interference with the use of the land of another which results from the escape
of the thing from his land.” Street on Torts
● Blackburn J: “A person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and
collects and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it
in at his peril and if he does not do so, he is prima facie liable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape.”
In order to claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must have an interest
in the land
Under the Rylands v Fletcher rule there is a requirement of a non-natural user, see
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 per Lord Moulton: “It is not every use to which land is
put that brings into play the Rylands v Fletcher principle. It must be some special use
bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of
the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.”
● Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156
● Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264, [1994] 2 WLR 35
Under Rylands v Fletcher you also must prove that something has escaped onto your land
● Gore v Stannard [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] 3 WLR 623
Even if the object has not escaped itself (eg. tyre in Gore v Stannard), if something
classed as a ‘dangerous thing’ escapes (gas, explosions, electricity, oil, noxious fumes,
colliery soil and fire) it is possible to claim under Rylands v Fletcher.
