torts

Overall process of breaking down a question

1. Identify the Interest: Is it land, goods, or reputation?.

2. Identify the Tort Action: Which specific tort applies (e.g., Trespass vs. Nuisance)?.

3. Establish Elements: Apply the sub-steps below using the relevant cases.

4. Evaluate State of Mind: Is liability strict (most property torts) or fault-based (e.g., adopting a nuisance)?.

5. Check Defences: Does a legal justification exist?.

6. Determine Remedy: What should the court award?

Trespass to land step 1

Land, airspace, subsoil: Is the interference within ordinary use and enjoyment?

trespass to land step 2

possession did the plaintiff have physical custody and an intention to control?

trespass to land step 3

unjustified direct interference: was there a positive, volunatary and direct act (entry,ouster, causing a thing to enter)

trespass to land step 4

sttrict liability - honest mistake is no defence

private nuisance: step 1

title: does the plaintiff have a proprietary interest (owner or tenet)

private nuisance: step 2

substantial and unreasonable intereference: is the harm more than trifling

• malice / motive (foxes)

• visual intrusion (tate gallery)

Private nusiance sgtep 3

liability basis
strict liability if defedant created the nusiance
fault based if they adopted or continued it

Rylands: step 1

collection/keeping: did the defendant bring a thing onto the land?

rylands: step 2:

non-natural use: was ther an abnormally great risk to the community?

ryland: step 3

mischief: was it likely to do mischeif if it escaped (expectionally high risk)

rylands: 4: escape: did the thing move to a place outside the defedant cotrols?

rylands 5: damages: was the resulting damages foreseeable

trespass to good: step 1

possession: did the plaintiff have possession at the time

trespass to good: step 2

direct interefereen: was there a deliberate physcial act?

conversion: inconsistent act

did the defedant execerise dominion that denied the plaintiffs rights?

Finders: step 1

finders vs all but true owner

finders step 2:

occupiers right: did the occupier manifest an intention to exocerise control?

defemation: step 1

defamatory meaning: would words lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking memeers of society

Threshold is more than minor

defamation: step 2

reference to plaintiff (identification): is the plaintiff identifiable?

defamation: step 3

communication to at least one third party

trespass defences

Licence (Express or Implied): Permission to be on the land

Necessity: Breaking the law to avoid a greater harm

tatutory Justification: Legal authority granted by Parliament

private nusiance: defence

Consent: The plaintiff agreed to the interference

Statutory Authority: The activity is authorised by an Act of Parliament

Note on "Coming to the Nuisance": It is no defence that the plaintiff moved next to a pre-existing nuisance

rylands: defences

Act of God: An overwhelming natural event.

Default of the Claimant: The plaintiff caused the escape themselves.

Independent Act of a Third Party (Act of a Stranger)

interference with goods defence

• Necessity: Acting to protect persons or property from imminent danger.
  

• Abandonment: The owner has completely relinquished their rights
  

• Jus Tertii (Right of a Third Party): Arguing that someone else has a better right to the goods.
  

• Innocent Dissemination: Specifically for distributors and processors

Defamation Defences

Truth (formerly Justification): Proving the statement is true.

• Statute: Defamation Act 1992, s 8: The defence succeeds if the defendant proves the "sting" (the core allegation) was true or not materially different from the truth

Honest Opinion (formerly Fair Comment): Protecting genuine commentary.

• Statute: Defamation Act 1992, s 9-11: Requires that the opinion be recognisable as an opinion, based on true facts in the public domain, and be the author's genuine opinion.

Absolute Privilege: Total immunity for specific settings.

• Context: Covers proceedings in Parliament and Judicial proceedings (courts). Even a knowingly false statement is protected here to ensure people speak freely.

Qualified Privilege: Protection that can be lost.

• Loss of Privilege: The defence is lost if the plaintiff proves the defendant was predominantly motivated by ill will or took improper advantage of the occasion (Defamation Act 1992, s 19).
  
  Responsible Communication in the Public Interest:

• Case: Christian v Bain: Rule: Protects journalists/publishers on matters of significant public concern if they took reasonable steps to verify allegations and provided the plaintiff an opportunity to respond