Trespass to land

Kelsen v Imperial Topbacco Ltf [1957] 2 A11 ER 343

C= tenant of shop

D= Occupied adjoining property

Landlord= owner of shop

• C’s shop = Single story shop at the end of terrace.

• Ds building = more than a single story → taller.#

• D attached large advertising sign on the wall that went above the Cs property and stick out a few inches over Cs roof.

• C objected this, annoyed with landlord who permitted sign.

• C brought action = successful in compelling defendant to remove advertising sign.

  • Proving possession was more important than ownership

  • sign= no harm yet still amounted to a tort.

  • Proved claimant had possession over the airspace that the advert was occupying.

  There was a discussion as to what the remedy should be = injunction or damages?

• Most often C wants to end the trespass= injunction.

League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott and others [1985] 2 AII ER 489

Negligent entry

Intention may be implied.

C= organisation/ landowners.

D= hunter

• C opposed blood sports and owned unfenced area of land for the purpose of providing sanctuaries for wild deer from being hunted.

• After 7 separate incursions onto Cs land by the local hunt they brought action against D.

• Seeking an injunction restraining D by themselves, their servants or agents from entering Cs land or causing or permitting hounds to cross it.

  • “A master of hounds was only liable in trespass to the owner of land on which hunting was prohibited if, in deliberately taking a pack of hounds in pursuit of quarry knowing that there was a real risk of the hounds entering the prohibited land, the master actually intended to cause the hounds to enter the prohibited land or if by his negligence in controlling the pack he failed to prevent the hounds from entering the land.

  • If the master persisted in hunting in the vicinity of prohibited land knowing that it was virtually impossible to prevent hounds from entering the land, whatever precautions might be taken, his indifference to the risk of trespass could be construed as an intention that the hounds should trespass.

  • Furthermore a master of hounds was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of those hunt servants, agents or mounted followers over whose conduct he could exercise control.

  • C had proved the trespasses by the hunt and would be awarded £180 damages and an injunction in respect of one particular area which had been persistently trespassed on by hounds.

Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd 1951 AII ER 363

D need not know they are trespassing.

C= worker

D= truck employer

• C claimed negligence for an accident involving him falling off a truck.

• Truck was operated by a different employer.

• Made it clear by putting up posters that only his workers could be transported by the truck on the site.

• C was injured but unable to succeed in negligence as he amounted to a trespasser of the truck.

• C claimed he was not aware he was not allowed on the truck= did not matter.

Lord Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1997] 2 AII ER 902.

How high and how low?

• D got into an aircraft to take photos of peoples houses and tried to sell the photos.

• LB objected this and succeeded on getting an injunction on the basis the D had trespassed in his airspace.

What is reasonable and what is a reasonable use of flight?

Section 76(1) Civil aviation act 1982=

• States that no trespass to land is committed by an aircraft or an aeroplane which is travelling at a height which is a legal height.

• As long as the aircraft is within the regulated regime it can take any route it wishes.

• Does authorise strict liability for anything that falls outside of the permitted height.

Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and another v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35

• Drilling for oil beneath the claimants land.

• No damage and technically beneath the Cs land without Cs permission.

  • Claimant was entitled to a remedy.

Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [1971] 2 AII ER 175.

• Squatters in Ds property.

• Cs argued that the D was rich and had lots of money and could make provisions for “homeless people like us”.

• Argument was that by necessity they occupied the property.

  • COA held that this was a public policy issue and not a basis for the defence of necessity.

Mosanto v Tilly [1999] Lexis Citation 372

Case concerning damaged crops.

• Intentionally damaged by people protesting against genetically modified crops.

• D used the excuse it was done in protest/necessity against crops.

• Judge held this was not valid argument for necessity.