This document provides an overview of the tort of trespass to land and chattel in UK law. It discusses the requirements and defenses for each tort. For trespass to land, the requirements are that the act must be intentional, directly interfere with possession of the land, and the claimant must possess the land. Defenses include license, necessity, and justification by law. Remedies for trespass include damages, injunction, self-help measures, orders for possession, and mesne profits.
This document provides an overview of the tort of trespass to land and chattel in UK law. It discusses the requirements and defenses for each tort. For trespass to land, the requirements are that the act must be intentional, directly interfere with possession of the land, and the claimant must possess the land. Defenses include license, necessity, and justification by law. Remedies for trespass include damages, injunction, self-help measures, orders for possession, and mesne profits.
This document provides an overview of the tort of trespass to land and chattel in UK law. It discusses the requirements and defenses for each tort. For trespass to land, the requirements are that the act must be intentional, directly interfere with possession of the land, and the claimant must possess the land. Defenses include license, necessity, and justification by law. Remedies for trespass include damages, injunction, self-help measures, orders for possession, and mesne profits.
This document provides an overview of the tort of trespass to land and chattel in UK law. It discusses the requirements and defenses for each tort. For trespass to land, the requirements are that the act must be intentional, directly interfere with possession of the land, and the claimant must possess the land. Defenses include license, necessity, and justification by law. Remedies for trespass include damages, injunction, self-help measures, orders for possession, and mesne profits.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
Trespass to land and chattel
Law of Torts I
Lecturer: Christopher Gray
E-mail: cg15586@my.bristol.ac.uk
Trespass to land
Protects against unjustifiable interference with land, rather than with personal integrity.
Also actionable per se
Deals with immediate and direct forms of interference
Less likely to overlap with criminal liability than trespass to the person – however there are some exceptions
Very old basis in law
Requirements of trespass to land:
1.) Must be intentional
It is the act of entry which must be intention, not the act of trespass – as such, even if you did not know you were trespassing you may be liable – Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd
No excuse that you were lost, but being thrown or pushed onto the land is excusable – Smith v Stone
Owners may be liable for animals committing trespass if they intended for the animals to enter the claimant’s land, or if they knew of a real risk and did not take reasonable care – League against Cruel Sports v Scott
2.) Direct and immediate interference
This can occur in different ways, for example, walking through a property or entering a house Also throwing things onto land i.e. gas canister in Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire; entry of animals; discharge of water in British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Ltd
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos – we own property until the depths of the earth and to the heavens Does this apply for trespass?
To the subsoil – yes – Bocardo SA v Star Energy
To the sky – not unless within the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures on it – Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd
3.) Possession of land
This is the interest protected – not ownership necessarily, but more than mere presence
Doesn’t matter if the claimant was in fact present at the premises, or whether they had been actually entered at all – ‘trespass by relation’ allows claims for trespass between the time of gaining rights and actual entry
Trespass to chattel
Intentional and direct interference with the possession of goods. Can include their damage or removal.
Requirements of trespass to chattel:
1. It must be intentional
In line with other trespass torts
What is relevant is that the act of interference must be intentional, it is irrelevant if the defendant did not realise that they were committing a trespass – Wilson v Lombank Ltd
Is negligence a basis for liability?
This has possible been suggested – for example in National Coal Board v JE Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd Not clear, however – maybe better to treat these as claims for negligence?
2. It must be direct and immediate
The same requirement as for the other torts – note that the requirement may be somewhat more stringent than to the person.
For example, if I put poison out for my neighbour’s dog – is this direct enough? It has been suggested not. C.f. DPP v K
3. Actionable per se
No proof of damage required
Note the overlap with negligence here, meaning that some cases appear to require proof of damage. 4. Possession
The tort is not concerned with ownership, but with whether the claimant is in possession at the time the interference took place – Wilson v Lombank Ltd
Defences to trespass to land/chattel
Licence
Similar to the defence of consent – a licence is a legal express or implied permission to enter land, or a consent to having property handled
Some limitations - May permit the visitor to enter some parts and not others Gould v McAuliffe Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Procter - unless it is to a part of the premises which no one would reasonably expect a visitor to go - May permit the person to remain on the premises only for a certain period of time, or revoke permission Robson v Hallett - May be permitted on the premises only for certain purposes Scrutton LJ in The Carlgrath: ‘when you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters’
Necessity
Same as defence for trespass to the person – there must be an actual or perceived danger in relation to which reasonable steps are taken
Distinction between public and private necessity
Public: preventing the damage must have been in the public interest– for example Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
Private: entering another’s property to save their own person or property from danger Bit more complicated – it is no defence to enter due to threats to your life – Gilbert v Stone Concerns that this defence could be used to cause public unrest – Southwark LBC v Williams
So – a more limited approach, approved in Monsanto Plc v Tilly
Justification by law
A valid defence will be found if there is legal authorisation for entering the claimants land.
May be for the purposes of, for example, crime control, or repairs/maintenance of adjoining land Doctrine of trespass ab initio: when a legal authority is used to enter land, and this authority is then abused, the visit will be treated as a trespass from the point of entry
Remedies
- Damages
- Injunction – if an ongoing trespass
- Self-help – it is permissible to use reasonable force to resist wrongful entry or
attempted entry, for example, fences or barbed wire, or a guard dog
- Order for possession – a land law remedy, in which a person seeks a court order to recover land which they have a better title to than the occupier
- Mesne profits – allows the claimant to seek fair and reasonable charge for use of property For example: Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett
Do The Changes Brought About by The Land Registration Act 2002, With Particular Focus On Adverse Possession, Do Enough To Protect Purchasers From Overriding Interests
Do The Changes Brought About by The Land Registration Act 2002, With Particular Focus On Adverse Possession, Do Enough To Protect Purchasers From Overriding Interests
