TORTS NOTES – INTENTIONAL TORTS
Contents
1
2
PREAMBLE .................................................................................................. 3
COMMON ELEMENTS TO INTENTIONAL TORTS ....................................................... 4
2.1
2.2
3
Intentional ............................................................................................................................... 4
Direct ....................................................................................................................................... 4
TRESPASS TO PERSON ..................................................................................... 5
3.1
Battery..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1
Hostile contact with the body ......................................................................................... 5
3.2
Highway battery...................................................................................................................... 5
3.3
Assault ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3.1
Act or threat .................................................................................................................... 6
3.3.2
Apprehension of imminent harmful contact .................................................................. 6
3.4
False imprisonment ................................................................................................................. 7
3.4.1
Total deprivation of liberty ............................................................................................. 7
3.4.2
Without reasonable means of escape ............................................................................ 7
3.4.3
For any time period ......................................................................................................... 7
3.4.4
Knowledge of imprisonment........................................................................................... 7
4
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY .................................................................................. 8
4.1
Trespass to land ...................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.1
Act that constitutes as direct interference with P’s possession of land ......................... 8
4.1.2
Unauthorised .................................................................................................................. 8
4.2
Trespass to goods [possession is interfered with] ................................................................... 9
4.2.1
Interference with P’s possession of goods ..................................................................... 9
4.3
Conversion [dealing in a way inconsistent with owner’s rights] ............................................. 9
4.3.1
Wrongful ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.3.2
Exercise of control over a good....................................................................................... 9
4.3.3
Which seriously interferes with P’s right to the good .................................................... 9
4.4
Detinue [failure to return goods to rightful owner] ................................................................ 9
4.4.1
D possesses goods........................................................................................................... 9
4.4.2
P has right to goods and demands their return .............................................................. 9
4.4.3
D does not comply .......................................................................................................... 9
5
ACTIONS ON THE CASE FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES OR NERVOUS SHOCK .......................... 10
5.1
Physical injuries caused by indirect intentional acts ............................................................. 10
5.2
Statements causing nervous shock ....................................................................................... 10
5.2.1
No justification for action ............................................................................................. 10
5.2.2
Calculated to produce this result (i.e. a prank) ............................................................. 10
5.2.3
The effect was not too remote ..................................................................................... 10
6
NUISANCE ................................................................................................. 11
6.1
Private Nuisance ................................................................................................................... 11
6.1.1
D Causes substantial interference ................................................................................ 11
6.1.2
Through unreasonable conduct .................................................................................... 11
6.1.3
With P’s enjoyment of the land .................................................................................... 11
6.2
Public Nuisance ..................................................................................................................... 12
6.2.1
Substantial and unreasonable interference.................................................................. 12
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
1
7
DEFENCES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS ........................................................ 13
7.1
Defence of the Person & Property ......................................................................................... 13
7.1.1
Requisite Additional Factors for Defence of Self .......................................................... 13
7.1.2
Requisite Additional Factors for Defence of Another ................................................... 13
7.2
Consent ................................................................................................................................. 13
7.2.1
Consent in Sport............................................................................................................ 14
7.2.2
Medical Procedures ...................................................................................................... 14
7.3
Necessity ............................................................................................................................... 15
7.4
Children ................................................................................................................................. 15
7.5
No Defence for Intentional Torts ........................................................................................... 15
7.6
Defences to Nuisance ............................................................................................................ 16
7.6.1
Prescription ................................................................................................................... 16
7.6.2
Consent of the P ............................................................................................................ 16
7.6.3
Fault of D ....................................................................................................................... 16
7.6.4
Statutory Authorisation ................................................................................................ 16
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
2
1 Preamble
Intentional trespasses are outside of the CLA: S3B CLA.
This means that their damages are not limited as in negligence claims, thus D can claim greater
damages for intentional torts.
Actionable per se; damage does not have to be shown/proven.
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
3
2 Common elements to intentional torts
2.1 Intentional
The D must have had an intention to do the tortious action, not to cause harm (Sibley v
Multinovic).
This may either be though a:


Deliberate action [intention to do harm] (McNamara v Duncan); or,
Or a reckless action [recklessness to the possibility of harm] (Weaver v Ward) (Morris v
Marsden).
For some intentional torts (battery, trespass to goods), negligence is sufficient [not taking enough
care to prevent a reasonable foreseeable risk from occurring] (Wiliams v Milotin).
2.2 Direct
Directness is similar to negligent causation; for an action to be classified as an intentional tort it
requires a direct link between action and damage; it may not be consequential (Hutchins v
Moughan).
Directness can only be satisfied if the following sub-elements are:



Immediacy (Reynolds v Clarke); and,
Directness of act (Scott v Shepherd) [squib in marketplace; held: for directness to be
satisfied, the damage must be the natural and probable consequence of D’s act]; and
Lack of an intervening act (Hutchins v Moughan) (Southport v Esso).
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
4
3 Trespass to person
Part 2, above (common elements) must be satisfied.
3.1 Battery
3.1.1 Hostile contact with the body
Battery requires contact with the body (R v Cotesworth); though contact may be through a medium
(Pursell v Horn).
Hostility may or may not be required (however, it must be perceived) (Wilson v Pringle) [for
hostility] (Rixon v Star City) [against its requirement].
3.2 Highway battery
Burden of proof is reversed (Venning v Chin)
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
5
3.3 Assault
3.3.1 Act or threat
Threats are a crux of words and acts. Words alone may constitute a threat if accompanied by
proxemics (Barton v Armstrong) (R v Ireland) [phone+].
3.3.2 Apprehension of imminent harmful contact
P must apprehend imminent harmful contact (Macpherson v Beath).
Threat must be unavoidable (Zanker v Vartzokas) (Barton v Armstrong).
With conditional threats, P must reasonable foresee violence if he disobeys (Rozsa v Samuels)
(Police v Greaves), limited by (Tuberville v Savage) [P could not have disobeyed, assize time].
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
6
3.4 False imprisonment
3.4.1 Total deprivation of liberty
(Burton v Davies) [Driving too fast to escape]
Can include omission (Cowell v Corrective Services) [released late; held: was falsely imprisoned]
3.4.2 Without reasonable means of escape
(R v Macquarie & Budge) [can’t get off boat]
3.4.3 For any time period
(Murray v Ministry of Defence)
3.4.4 Knowledge of imprisonment
(Meering v Grahame-White Aviation) [P did not know he was imprisoned; held: this did not
constitute false imprisonment]
Nominal damages may be awarded where P did not know of imprisonment (Myer v Soo)
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
7
4 Trespass to property
Part 2, above (common elements) must be satisfied.
4.1 Trespass to land
4.1.1 Act that constitutes as direct interference with P’s possession of land
P does not have to have legal ownership, merely possession (Newington v Windeyer)
Land does not include air-space (Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews)
Land does include a certain distance underground (Stoneman v Lyons)
4.1.2 Unauthorised
If unauthorised, even the smallest entry may be trespass (Westripp v Balcock)
Trespass may occur if “licence” to be on land expires, is exceeded (Bond v Kelly) or is withdrawn
(Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse)
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
8
4.2 Trespass to goods [possession is interfered with]
4.2.1 Interference with P’s possession of goods
Possession =/ ownership; includes bailee (Wilson v lombank), trustee, executor
4.3 Conversion [dealing in a way inconsistent with owner’s rights]
4.3.1 Wrongful
Negligence etc are not sufficient, must be intentional (Joule v Poole)
4.3.2 Exercise of control over a good
Types of exercise of control include:





Taking possession (Rendell v Associated Finance)
Disposing (Consolidated Co v Curtis)
Destruction (Simmons v Lillystone)
Denying P’s rights of ownership (Motor Dealers v Overland)
Withholding possession (Flowfill v Fytore)
4.3.3 Which seriously interferes with P’s right to the good
Damage or change in quality of product/ownership status required (Fouldes v Willoughby)
Possession as:





Ownership (Butler v Egg)
Equitable title
Possessory title
Finder (Armory v Delarmarine) [chimney sweep jewel]
Etc.
4.4 Detinue [failure to return goods to rightful owner]
4.4.1
D possesses goods
4.4.2 P has right to goods and demands their return
Place and time of swap should be arranged (Lloyd v Osborne)
4.4.3 D does not comply
Refusal must be unreasonable and categorical.
It does not need to be express or without reason (Howard E Perry v British Railways)
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
9
5 Actions on the case for physical injuries or nervous shock
5.1 Physical injuries caused by indirect intentional acts
(Bird v Holbrook) [set trap to shoot, someone came in and got shot; D held liable for not warning of
the trap]
5.2 Statements causing nervous shock
(Wilkinson v Downton)
5.2.1
No justification for action
5.2.2 Calculated to produce this result (i.e. a prank)
Not only statements, but actions too (Bunyan)
5.2.3
The effect was not too remote
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
10
6 Nuisance
6.1 Private Nuisance
6.1.1 D Causes substantial interference
Damage not required, since this is offence is actionable per se; however, damage is usually required
for damages to be awarded.
Interference may include:




Physical damage (McKinnon Industries v Walker)
Interference with enjoyment (i.e. light, sound, smoke, etc.) (McKenzie v Powley) [early
morning sing song]
Interference with property rights
Personal injury (though this is more likely to find itself as a negligence action)
Interference must be substantial; substantial damage is “more than fanciful, more than one of
fastidiousness ... according to plain and sober notions among English people” (Walter v Selfe).
6.1.2 Through unreasonable conduct
Must be unreasonable conduct, with no attempt at remedy (Sedley-Denfield v O’Callaghan)
Reasonableness of conduct is dependent on type of damage: P159 little tort







Motive
Abnormal sensitivity
Locality
Timing
Duration
Precautions
interests
6.1.3 With P’s enjoyment of the land
P has title to sue if owner
Authorities are dubious about extending this title
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
11
6.2 Public Nuisance
(Attorney General v PYA Quarries)
6.2.1 Substantial and unreasonable interference
e.g. car broken down is not public nuisance unless it stays there for too long (Maitland v Raisbeck)
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
12
7 DEFENCES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS
7.1 Defence of the Person & Property

Onus rests on D to prove that their actions were a reasonable response to the reasonable
belief that their life would be in danger or they would be seriously injured otherwise
(Pearce v Hallet).
o S52(2): “a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them” 
both objective and subjective tests.
7.1.1 Requisite Additional Factors for Defence of Self
 D may use such force as is necessary to protect him or herself where (McClelland v
Symons; Fontin v Katapodis);

He or she reasonably has no other option open to them (Fontin v Katapodis);

Reasonable belief in risk of death or serious bodily harm (Zecevic v DPP affirmed in civil law
Lewandowski v Medrzycki).
7.1.2 Requisite Additional Factors for Defence of Another
 Property includes both land and goods.

Reasonable force may be used to expel trespassers where the person using that force has
right to actual or exclusive possession (Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd).
o Hackshaw v Shaw: HC held that firearms were not justifiable for self-defence of
property.
7.2 Consent
Any consent by P will vitiate the illegality of the trespass by the D, whether to the person, land or
goods  consent may be express or implied. It is up to the D to raise the defence.
For consent to be valid, it must be:

Voluntary;
o

Consent is involuntary when given due to fraud, under influence or threat (Freeman
v Home Office), bribes, misrepresentation of facts or duress (Noberg v Wynrib).
Come from a competent person;
o
Minors, unconscious persons and certain psychiatric persons incapable of giving
consent.

No fixed age for when a child is deemed able to give consent (Department of
Health and Community Services v JWB), though in general, it is up to the
parent or guardian, though they can be circumvented by, for example asking
the Supreme Court to exercise its paternal jurisdiction (among other things).
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
13


7.2.2

Gillick v West Norfolk Health Authority: held that 15y.o. girl could give
consent to medical advice from doctor without parents re: contraception.

Marion’s Case: A disability doesn’t necessarily mean person is incapable of
giving consent (depends on individual). Parents not allowed to authorise
sterilisation as non-therapeutic, nor in child’s interests.
Be given with knowledge;
o
Consent must be given in relation to the nature and character of the act.
o
CONSENT = Papadimitropoulos v R: Despite mistaken belief, P consented to sex.
o
NO CONSENT = R v Williams: P’s consent was to a surgical operation, not to sex.
Be in relation to the act complained of.
o
7.2.1


Consent to one act does not necessarily authorise another act of a different type
(McNamara v Duncan).
Consent in Sport
Consent is not a defence if the force of the trespass exceeds the consent given.
o
McNamara v Duncan: The court found that the D’s deliberate striking of the P with
his elbow was a serious breach of the rules, and that this was outside the consent
given by the Plaintiff.
o
Giumelli v Johnston: One consents to the rules and ordinary infringements of the
game, not foul play. Here, the force was such that D intended to cause bodily harm,
or realized it would occur (likely)  consent no defence.
o
Pallante v Stadiums Ltd (No 1): The differentiating factors were between those
actions which were a display of skill, as opposed to a blow struck with hostile intent.
Medical Procedures
A doctor must obtain consent to perform any procedure, unless it is urgently required.
o
NO CONSENT = Murray v McMurchy: extended procedure not necessary (no
immediate risk to health)
o
Consent to an operation is not vitiated by failure to disclose full risks of procedures
(Sidaways v Bethlehem Hospital).
o
Gillick v West Norfolk Health Authority: In this case, it was found that a doctor could
give contraceptive advice and treatment without parental knowledge and consent if
they are satisfied that the adolescent:

Would understand it

Can’t be persuaded to inform her parents
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
14

Is likely to have sex with or without the advice

Is likely to undergo physical or mental suffering without the advice or
treatment.

Best interests are that they should be treated.
o
Marion’s Case: The court held that consent to sterilize an intellectually disabled
minor by parents/guardians is not valid
o
Malette v Shulman: despite honest and reasonable belief that blood transfusion
necessary, P gave express lack of consent.
7.3 Necessity

Defendant commits an immediate trespass to the person, land or goods;

In response to a reasonably perceived need to avoid an imminent threatened harm; and

The defendant’s conduct is a reasonable response to that harm, which may be to one’s own
person, goods or land or that of a third party.

Defence available even where the desired outcome of the actions goes wrong (Proudman v
Allen; Mouse’s Case).

Defence available even where it causes damage to an innocent party (Gerrard v Crowe;
Greyvensteyn v Hattingh).

Defence not available for cannibalism (Dudley v Stepehens) or squatters staying in a house
indefinitely (Southwark London Borough Council v Williams)
7.4 Children

Whilst this is a possible defence, it will depend on the facts of the case.

Smith v Leurs: Held 13y.o. boy liable for battery when stone from slingshot injured P.

McHale v Watson: ‘(a) child is personally liable for the consequences of wrongful acts… if he
was old enough to know that his conduct was wrongful’.
7.5 No Defence for Intentional Torts

Mistake;

Contributory negligence by the P (Horkin v North Melbourne Football Club Social Club);

Insanity (Morris v Marsden);

No defence in NSW for battery or assault (Fontin v Katapodis).
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
15
7.6 Defences to Nuisance
7.6.1

Prescription
Available only in private nuisance, and virtually impossible to succeed with.
7.6.2

Consent of the P
Kiddle v City Business Properties Ltd: Tenant who took premises in the state they were in,
could not complain in nuisance to the landlord in regard to overflowing gutters.
Note: P coming to the nuisance is not a defence.

7.6.3

Fault of D
Where the nuisance is created by a third party, and D did not know, and should not ought to
have known of the nuisance, then D not liable (Montana Hotels v Fasson). BUT where D
should have known of the nuisance they will be liable (R v Shorrock).
7.6.4

Statutory Authorisation
Where D’s activity is authorized, impliedly or expressly, by statute  D will not be liable
provided interference could not have been avoided by the use of reasonable care
(Manchester Corp v Famworth).
o It is not sufficient that D show that the activity was authorized by statute; they must
also prove that the creation of the nuisance is authorized, expressly or impliedly. If
the nuisance is a necessary part of the authorized action, then it is implied.
o D needs to prove they acted reasonably in creating the nuisance. Further, they must
not exceed the authorization of the statute.
o D must also prove that there was no other alternative means of completing the
authorized act without creating a nuisance
 York Bros v Commissioner of Main Roads: D not successful.
 Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings: Pty Ltd: D successful.
Johanan Ottensooser: 108873305
70311: Torts – Autumn 2010
16