Keeble v Hickeringill Case Summary Assignment
Student name: Leslie Lim
Matric number: A0096796
TG: 10
Word count: 449
Mailbox number: 1462
LAWR instructor: Miss Angeline Yap
1
Name of case:
Keeble v. Hickeringill, 103 Eng. Rep. 1127
Parties:
Plaintiff: Keeble
Defendant: Hickeringill
Facts of case:
1. Plaintiff and defendant had set up a decoy in their respective property and in close
vicinity of each other to attract wildfowl.
2. Defendant had fired off his guns near to the plaintiff’s decoy which caused the
wildfowl to be scared off.
3. Plaintiff makes profit by luring wildfowl to his decoy.
4. The case was disputed twice.
Procedural History:
Plaintiff sues defendant for trespass to chattels. Defendant appeals the first judgment.
Issues:
1. Did the defendant fire his guns with the intention of inflicting loss of profit on the
plaintiff?
2. Can action be taken against the defendant when he affects the plaintiff’s ability to use
his property for personal and monetary gains?
2
Holding:
Yes to 1 and 2
Reasoning:
1. It was common during that time for people to use decoys to lure wildfowl as a source
of income hence the defendant would be aware of the profit losses his actions would
cause.
2. It was legal for anyone to use his land according to his desires and to catch wildfowl
for profit. The defendant had hampered the plaintiff’s ability to make his livelihood
by scaring the wildfowl away. If a man causes losses to another person by using his
land to lure wildfowl, thus creating competition in the latter’s area of business, he is
not held responsible as he also has the right to use his land in such a way. However, it
does not apply in this case as the defendant had damaged the plaintiff’s business by
scaring off the wildfowl, not by competing for the wildfowl and thus should be held
accountable.
Judgment for initial verdict:
Judgment for the plaintiff
Defense:
1. It is not stated in plaintiff’s declaration the number or type of fowl scared off by the
defendant’s actions as in Playier’s case, 5 Rep. 34. There is no way to quantify the
number of fowl which fled as the plaintiff was never in ownership of the escaped
wildfowl. When a man files damage claims for loss of goods, he must first know how
much he owns in order to find out what he has lost as in Dent v. Oliver, 2 Cro. 123.
3
Issue for final verdict:
Can action still be taken against the defendant for committing trespass to chattels?
Holding:
Yes
Reasoning:
The plaintiff is filing for damages against the defendant for causing disruption to his
livelihood, thus preventing him from using his land as he is entitled to and not to claim for
the loss of wildfowl as in Dawney v. Dee 2 Cro. 604.
Judgment:
Judgment for the plaintiff
4