Reasonable Fear If the plaintiffs is at the mercy of defendant and has no – idea if the harm is to occur now or in 10 minutes, then it is a continuous fear and enough for assault. (Zanker v Vartzokas) Directness direct result where that interference can be characterised as being part of D’s act (Southport v Esso) Lord Denning held no Trespass as interference Southport v Esso – from oil only occurred due to the action of the tide washing it up on P’s property. Not Direct - Run off onto other prosperities is not direct as its consequential - (Huchins v Maughan) In - a case the plaintiff’s sheep dog ate Hutchins v Maughan poisonous bait and died - the Court ruled that in order for trespass of goods to be established, there must be direct intention and physical control. the dog consumed the bait independently of anyone else’s interference. Fault – Act may be done either (League intentionally or carelessly Against Cruel Sports v Scott) Notion of continuing trespass after initial trespass committed, person/object – remains on land, personal responsible is liable (Konskier v B Goodman Ltd) Interest P must be entitled to exclusive possession of land when the trespass – occurred & P must have been in actual/constructive possession Mere licence to be on the land is not sufficient (Vaughan v Shire of Benalla) 4 Defences against Trespass to Land? Consent Implied consent to enter property by pathway/drive leading to the ordinary – entrance of normal suburban dwelling if unobstructed e.g. gate unlocked, – legitimate reason for being there (Halliday v Nevill) Must be an authorised act (Lincoln Hunt v Willesee) which Can remove implied consent at any time by express consent – ‘sign says keep out’ Presume there is a licence but what do the facts say ? Revocation of consent –
Reasonable Fear – If the plaintiffs is at the mercy of defendant and has no idea if the harm is to occur now or in 10 minutes, then it is a continuous fear and enough for assault. (Zanker v Vartzokas) Directness direct result where that interference can be characterised as being part of D’s act (Southport v Esso) Southport v Esso – Lord Denning held no Trespass as interference from oil only occurred due to the action of the tide washing it up on P’s property. Not Direct - Run off onto other prosperities is not direct as its consequential - (Huchins v Maughan) In Hutchins v Maughan - a case the plaintiff’s sheep dog ate poisonous bait and died - the Court ruled that in order for trespass of goods to be established, there must be direct intention and physical control. the dog consumed the bait independently of anyone else’s interference. Fault – Act may be done either intentionally or carelessly (League Against Cruel Sports v Scott) Notion of continuing trespass – after initial trespass committed, person/object remains on land, personal responsible is liable (Konskier v B Goodman Ltd) Interest – P must be entitled to exclusive possession of land when the trespass occurred & P must have been in actual/constructive possession Mere licence to be on the land is not sufficient (Vaughan v Shire of Benalla) 4 Defences against Trespass to Land? Consent Implied consent – to enter property by pathway/drive leading to the ordinary entrance of normal suburban dwelling if unobstructed – e.g. gate unlocked, legitimate reason for being there (Halliday v Nevill) Must be an authorised act (Lincoln Hunt v Willesee) Can remove implied consent at any time by express consent – ‘sign which says keep out’ Presume there is a licence but what do the facts say ? Revocation of consent –
Torts.docx