tort: updated version

tort of trespass- assualt

It’s the anticipation of the battery

• words cannot amount to an assualt

→ silence can (r v ireland)

However, words can amount to emotional suffering if / inflict harm:

1. made to cause harm

2. did cause harm

3. recognized psychatric illness (Wikson v downton 1897→ also provides remedies), (page v Smith = anxiety not included)

• You may also consider harrasement 1997 order if there is conscious harm (section 3)

tort of trespass- battery

the actual infliction/unlawful force against another

• any unwanted touching = battery (cole v turner 1704)

• consent does not extend to hostile acts (Wilson v pringle 1987)

tort of trespass- false imprisonment

MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A5 OF ECHR ALOGNSIDE CASES!

• may be physcial or psychological (philips v GN RY CO ltd 1903)

• can be as small as a toliet (louis v commonswealth 1986)

• failure to realse (burns v johnston 1919)

• C must show an intention to deprive C of his libery (Iqbal v Prison officers Association 2010)

O’connell in Diverse Voices in tort law (bristol uni press 2024)

on tresspass:

• main argument is that AI is harming people and little remdies are being given

• Non- consensual image distribution (including ‘revenge porn’)

  • in the law the soutions aren’t effective. (in general this area of tort trespass sexual stuff doesn’t give claiments proper remdies)

occupiers liabilty- visitors

occupiers libaility act 1957 / occupiers liability act 1957 (NI)

→ s2(1) the duty owed to a visitor is the “common duty of care” - that of reasonable care

→ reasonabe care to prevent ‘unusual danger’ which he know or ought to know

the problme: “occupiers liability” is not defined

occupiers liabilty— trespassors

occupiers liabilty act 1984/ occupiers liabilty order NI 1984

s1(4) no duty owend UNLESS:

a) aaware / has reasonable reason to belive danger exists

b) knows that a non-visitor may be in the vicinity of danger

c) occupier is expected to protect agains A) and B)

uncertainty…

• frequent trespassors

• child tresasspor

→ allurnment. British railway board v herrington (1957)- a duty was owed to a 6 yar old tresspasor. if D knows or ought to know that something on his property would lure a child to play with it and is dangerouse, D is expected to take care of that.

Tomlison v congleton borough council 2004

• looks at trespassor v visitor

• looks at what if D did everything in their power to stop C from trespassing

• 18 yr old jumping in lake- not a child

• public policy decision

-occupiers liabilty

fearn v tate gallery 2023 case

• private nuisance

• at the lower courts it was held that there was no claim for nuisance (high court / court of appeal) so SC overturns it as a majority decision so you gotta say whos the minority judges and contrast their decisions

dessenting judgement: easonableness (which unifies the nuisance tort) requires consideration of interests on both side

→ they are allowed to recover for the overlooking of their property because

impact that has on the tort of private nuisance:

• overlooking / visual intrusion is now a nuisance. also the nuisance can be created in anyway

• looks at commercial decisions of tate and they say that creating a platform is not an ordinary use of the land. this was a commercial decision of tate and critizes so no that has implications of planning (manchester shipping case) and large cities like london.

do you agree:

• disagree: judgement in hunter to say this is a planning issue not really something that need to be dealt with nuisance more statue base

• agree: everyone is eintitled (ECHR A8- right to private life)

→ whichever root u take include academic commentary

nicholas v james followed fearn

christie v davey 1893

• private nuisance case

• music teacher would teach in her home for 3 years until the defendant got annoyed and sent her a letter which the claiment (music teacher) too offesnivly. so she did not reply. however the defedant began creating a loud noise every time he heard music / singing by banging on the walls or clashing medal and yelling. the claiment sued and the defendant counter argued however the court was more in favour of the claiment due to the wait the defendant reacted. however this doesn’t always work as seen in bradford v pickles → here the defendants motives were irrelavent, unlike in christie

sturges and bingamn 1879

• private nuisance

• LOCATION MATTERS!

• the docotor wanted to build a new consulting room

• the defendant had been a used grinding equiepement which made loud noises for 20 years without the doctors complaint

• docotor sued for private nuisance but the defendant argued that it has been happening for 20 years so it shouldn’t count

• but the court said that time (20 years) only ran from the point a nuisance began, and in this case it was after the doctor built the consulting room

• “coming to nuisance” is not a defence

• perscription (only for private nuisance) - if youv’e been able to do something for 20 years then it doesn’t count

robinson and kilvert 1889

• private nuisance

• shows how nuisance protects the ordinary use of land

• the heat was normal the brown paper was abnormally sensitive

corby 2009 case

• public nusiance

• traditionally, nusiance protects land not personal injury

• however here, the local council (Corby Borough Council) brought toxic waste unto residential land which causes many birth defects

Manchester Corporation 1930

• private nuisance

• fumes came from ships

• claiments property affected

• Highlighted that general statutory authorization implies immunity from nuisance unless proven otherwise. statue says it’s okay then it’s a defence

• statutory authority defence

nuisance defenition

unreasonable interference with the rights of another (flemming)

public nuisance defenition

the unreasonable interference with rights common to all (flemming)

private nuisance defenition

→ unreasonable interference with rights associated with use of the land (flemming)

wye and severn case

• both private and public nuisance

• climate change activists

• shows how this area of tort is moving from highway-focused cases to climate change environmental actions

public nuisance

• crime that leads to civil action

• protects the defendant to protect the defendant from endless litigation and floodgates of the court

• special damage is required if you want to be considered as part of a community that is effected tate & lyle 1983 case examep→ they suffered economic loss do to the building of the ferry terminals which narrowed the river channels and made navigation harder. “special damage”

public nuisance umbrella cases:

Issue	Miller v Jackson	Bellew
Activity	Community cricket	Commercial cement works
Public benefit?	Yes (village sport)	Minimal / profit-driven
Court’s approach	Flexible, policy-driven	Protective of claimant
Remedy	Damages (no injunction)	Liability recognised

contrast the 2

how is public nuisance evolving?

most of the cases are on highways: r v jones 1812 Lord ellenborough

• however in more recent years nuisance has been moving towards environmental climat change stuff → smith v fontera (new zealand case 2024)!

what does david bullock argue in the modern law review

• public nuisance offers the oppertunity to advocate and fight for climate change and the environment

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]

private nuisance

• Reinforced that nuisance protects property rights, not personal inconvenience.

• Clarified that only those with a legal interest in the land can be plaintiffs.

• Helped shape the modern scope of private nuisance claims.

• only those directly affected can sue

what does maria lee argue in the Law Quarterly Review

private nuisance is inconsistent

what does Jeevan Hariharan say in the Modern Law Review - 2023 as a disagreement to the judgement on fern

“Commentators worried about the case opening the floodgates to

future litigation where other public spaces could be shut down, and the general sentiment was that those who live in glass houses should install curtains rather than

than complain about invasions of their privacy”

Transco plc v Stockport [2004]

F (Facts):
A leaking water pipe owned by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council washed away soil and exposed a gas pipe belonging to Transco plc, creating a risk of explosion.

I (Issue):
Whether the council was liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of water.

D (Decision):
The House of Lords held the council was not liable.

R (Rule):
Liability under Rylands v Fletcher only applies where there is non-natural (extraordinary) use of land and escape of a dangerous thing.

• reaffirmed that fletcher is a limited rule and only applied to non-natural uses of the land

• non- natural vs natrural use of land

• in this case it was not un-natural because even if they involve large quantities of water. the council wasn’t using the water pipes in a “non-natural” way and fletcher remains a limited rule that would be applied only in nusual or extraordinary land use.

what is the tort of rylands v fletcher 1868

in a nutshell: someone has something on their land that spreads /bursts/ comes onto your land. it is a strict liability so no need to proove that the plantiff was neggligent you just need to show all 6 elements happened.

Corby Group v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463

allowed for remeides for personal injury in PUBLIC NUISANCE??

a bunch of waste dumped in a premisses. council took it over and began to regenerate the area. this involved transporting the waste into public areas and leading to dust in the air. the affect of this was that the children born in this are were born with a disease far more than the surrounding areas.the families were allowed to recover for neggligence, public nuisance. (special damages for personal injury in land tort?). however in private nuisance this is not the case. public nuisance allows this even tho its a land tort. PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENT??????

what case affirmed (followed) fern v tate gallery 2023

nicholas v jackson