Trespass to land ( Bens section)

What are the elements of trespass to land

1. Direct and unlawful intereference

2. unauthorised entry

3. plaintiff in possession

4. damages

Matchitt v Whanagra

Direct and unlawful interference

• may include throwing someones belonging out on to the lawn Matchitt

• drilling for oil below there property Star energy

• putting up a sign by entering there property De Richuamount v OTW Adveritsing

Plaintiff in possession

• goes from the heavenas to hell —> however if it is absurd then it will not be trespass e.g. because they could drill to the oil pipes not absurd therefore trespass Star energy

• Matchitt still have 4 months left to live in the property

• Implied licenses can be revoked De Richaumount v OTW Advertising

Matchitt v Whangra

• Court ordered the right to evict after 2 months 

• The order included a 4 month grace period 

• After 2 months a trustee went over and threw all there belongings on to the law 

Outcome: Trespass by the trustee 

Ratio: 

• Unlawful direct interference: 

  • Unlawful as within the 4 month period 

  • Interference = dont have to be damage just a positive act 

• Unauthorised entry ( yes) 

• Plaintiff in possession

  • Intention to posses the land 

  • Exercise of control/exclusion of others 

Damages signal how serious the interference is includes emotional distress, other damages and indication of possessor rights, damage to the land does not need to be established.

De Richuamount v OTW Advertising

• Wanted to attach a ad to a building they owned but to put it up they must get through the neighbouring property, it changed owners and they stopped have permission 

Ratio: 

• Must have permission/consent from neighbour 

• If you own something you have absolute rights to it 

Doctrine of implied license can be cancelled as it was in this case

Star energy v borcado

• Property sitting over oil 

• Company drilled down pipes would go directly under the privately owned land 

Outcome: 

•  Turned to Bernstein of Leigh v Skydices and General Ltd to see what occurred in the sky, → if ownership is not restricted by the ordinary usage of the height of the land and structure it is upon it they have nor more right then the ownership. 

• The idea you own from the sky to the court still has some relevance but not a perfect guide, 

• The owner below is the owner where there is the practical stopping point 

• Thus there is trespass as it could be accessed and he was in possession. 

• There is notes about absurdity but in this case it was possible to drill that far down