Intentional tort

Assault and Battery:

Scott vs Shepherd (market)

(The defendant threw a squib into a busy marketplace. In order to protect themselves the squib
was thrown on by two other people. When it landed near to the complainant, it exploded and
caused injury to his face. The injury to the complainant was the direct and unlawful act of the
defendant who originally threw and intended to throw the squib. The other people threw on the
squib for their own safety. The whole act was a continuation of the defendant’s action, which was
intended.)

Wilson vs Pringle (schoolboy)

(A schoolboy, the defendant, pulled another boy's school bag, causing the claimant to fall over
and suffer hip injuries. The defendant’s act was not hostile and a claim in battery could not be
established)

R vs martin (theatre)
(battery without physical force by hindering the exit of a theatre and causing panic)

Haystead vs cc derbyshire (baby on lap)

(Reckless battery through a medium. Punching a woman who was holding her baby)

Cole vs turner (anger)

(Contact on narrow passage without harm does not constitute battery. It depends on mental
element or intention. The least touching of another in anger is a battery. Accidental touching in
reasonable manner would not amount to battery)

Collins vs wilcock (hostile touch of police)

(Unlawful touching when beyond scope of police authority and acted outside lawful powers.
Hostile means 'not within the accepted modes of behaviour' and physical contact which is not
generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of life is a battery)

O'brien vs cunard (vaccine)

(Vaccination on steamship. No objection constitutes implied consent and it is a defence to
battery)
Stephens vs mayers (assault was prevented)
(the defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but was
prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. It is an assault because he had
the intention to commit a battery)

Thomas vs num (mineworkers)

(the mine workers could not constitute an assault as the crowd lacked the capacity to
immediately carry out its threats)

R vs Ireland (breathe on phone)

(silence causing psychiatric injury could constitute assault)

Tuberville vs savage (threat of future harm)

('If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language.' A threatening declaration of future
harm doesn't constitute an assault. No intention to cause an assault)

False Imprisonment:

Grainger vs hill (unlawful arrest)

(arresting someone by abusing of legal process is a false imprisonment)

Meering vs ghaham white (worker)

(a worker was taken to a room with suspicion. Act fulfilling the requirement for a false
imprisonment, even if the individual is unaware at the time, still counts)

Murray vs ministry of defence (suspect in house)

(The failure to make the formal arrest until half an hour after entering the house did not render
detention from the beginning unlawful. Detention of suspect is not false imprisonment under
reasonable grounds)

R vs Bournewood NHS Trust (detention without knowledge)

(a mental patient was not detained in an unlocked hospital because he was unaware of the fact
that if he tried to leave he would be prevented from doing so) In contrast with (Meering v
Grahame-White) and (Murray vs Ministry of Defence)

Bird vs Jones (road)

(There was partial obstruction without boundary as the claimant was not confined and prevented
from passing or leaving that road and so it doesn't constitute false imprisonment and there was
other direction in which he could pass)

Sayers vs Harlow Urban (door was stuck)

The door of lavatory was stuck due to negligence)

R vs Governor of Brockhill Prison (jail sentence)

(A prisoner was entitled to reduction in jail sentence for the time spent before trial. The prison
governor was liable for false imprisonment from the fate when the prisoner should have been
released)

Iqbal vs Prison Officers Association (Strike in jail)

(The defendant must intend or subjectively foresee the possibility of imprisonment. As Iqbal was
a prisoner, his confinement because of the strike was considered lawful and could not amount to
false imprisonment)

Robinson vs Bailman New Ferry Co (contract)

(A person can be legitimately prevented from leaving if they had entered an earlier contracted
permitting so)

Herd vs Weardale (mine)

(The claimant had voluntarily chosen to go into the mine knowing there was normally no way out
until 4 pm. Thus it doesn't constitute false imprisonment)

White vs WP Brown (shop detective)

(Elderly woman was stopped by shop detective and was unlawfully detained for 15 minutes.
Store detective acted unlawfully and so liable for false imprisonment)

Trespass to Land:

Conway vs george wimpey (lori)

(Trespass will arise where a person crosses the property of another on reliance of the permission
of a person who has no authority to give that permission. It was immaterial whether he knew he
was trespasser or not. Interference without lawful authority is trespass)

Westripp vs baldock (ladder)

(a ladder leaning against the claimant’s wall was a trespass. Mere contact can amount to
trespass)

Franklin vs jeffries (arm through window)

(Trespass when an unwanted arm came through a window. This shows how liability can arise
when even a small part of the trespasser's anatomy has crossed the boundary, and that no
damage needs to occur in order to claim)

Kelsen vs imperical tobacu (advertising board)

(Defendant committed trespass by allowing an advertising board to project 8 inches into the
plaintiff's property at ground level and above ground level. Trespass to Lower level airspace)

Anchor Brewhouse v Barkley Home (crane)

(the arms of tower cranes situated on the defendants’ land crossed the airspace above the
claimants’ land; the defendants were held liable for trespass, even though the cranes were at a
height which meant that the normal use of the land was not)

Bocardo sa vs star energy (subsoil trespass)

(an oil company had, without Bocardo’s knowledge or consent, drilled a well from their own land
through Bocardo’s land to access an oil deposit under Bocardo’s estate. the landowner owns
everything below the surface, is deemed to be in possession of it, and can sue for damages for
subterranean trespasses)

Six carpenters case (Six carpenters entered a tavern asked for wine and paid for it. After wards
they asked a second supply, but refuse to pay for it. Mere non payment was a nonfeasance which
was not sufficient to render them trespasser ab initio)

Elias vs passmore (The police entered premises legally and seized some documents lawfully
under a warrant, but also some not covered by the warrant. Trespass only committed in respect
of the unlawfully seized items)

Delany v tp smith (superior rights)

(The claimant with oral tenancy or ineffective lease entered the property of the defendant and
get ejected by D. The D still had superior rights of occupation and was entitled to eject the C as
the agreement wasn't complete yet in writing)

Smith vs stone (involuntary trespass)

(Defendant was carried onto plaintiff’s land by force and violence of others. So D was not liable
for trespass as his actions were not voluntary. An involuntary trespass is not actionable)

Robson vs hallett (Reasonable time to leave)

1. Any person on lawful business has implied leave and licence to walk through the gate and
knock on the front door of the house. 2. Police officers who lawfully enter premises and whose
licence to do so is not revoked are acting in the exercise of their duty. 3. Once a licence to be on
a property is revoked, a person must be given a reasonable time to leave)

Bernstein vs skyviews general (Trespass to airspace)

(Defendant took arial photograph of claimant's house. They offered to sell him the photo but
claimant complained that the photography was a gross invasion of privacy. The defendant's
aircraft did not infringe any rights in the claimant's air space, so no trespass was committed)

Cope vs sharpe (to prevent greater harm)

(the defendant entered the plaintiff's premises to stop the spread of fire in the adjoining land.
Since the defendant's act was to prevent greater harm so he was held not liable for trespass)

London Borough of Southwark v Williams (homeless squatters)

Homeless squatters could not use the defence when they had taken possession of empty
property belonging to the claimant

Rigby vs chief constable Northamptonshire (necessity)

(Police officers fired CS gas into the claimant’s shop where a dangerous armed psychopath was
hiding. This ignited powder caused the shop to burn down. It didn't constitute trespass as the
police successfully raised a defence of necessity. However, they're liable for negligence)