Trespass in English law

Last updated

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

Contents

Trespass to the person comes in three variants: assault, which is "to act in such a way that the claimant believes he is about to be attacked"; [1] battery, "the intentional and direct application of force to another person"; [2] and false imprisonment, "depriving the claimant of freedom of movement, without a lawful justification for doing so". [3] All three require that the act be a direct and intentional act, with indirect or unintentional acts falling under the tort of negligence. Battery and assault require the claimant to establish that the defendant intended to act, while false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability. The guiding principle behind all three is based on the statement of Robert Goff, LJ, who stated in Collins v Wilcock that "any person's body is inviolate", [4] excepting normal, day-to-day physical contact.

Trespass to goods is defined as "wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another", [5] and is covered not only by the common law, but also by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The "trespass" can be as little as touching or moving the goods, given the right circumstances. It is unknown whether intention is required for a claim under trespass to goods, as the matter has never gone to court; the courts have confirmed that for damages to be awarded for harm suffered, the harm must have been reasonably foreseeable.

Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another"; [6] it is both a tort and, in certain circumstances, a crime under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. While most trespasses to land are intentional, the courts have decided that it could also be committed negligently. Accidental trespass also incurs liability.

Trespass to the person

The general principle is that a trespass to the person must be a direct and intentional act, while if it was indirect or unintentional the tort of negligence is more appropriate, as established in Letang v Cooper . [7] [8] The tort of trespass to the person contains three possible types; assault, battery and false imprisonment. [9]

Assault

In English law, an assault means to act in such a way that the claimant or victim apprehends the application of immediate unlawful force upon themselves. The key elements of the tort are therefore that the defendant acts, and does so in such a way that the claimant is put in fear of "immediate physical violence". There is no requirement that actual damage be caused. In R v Costanza , the courts held that threats made by a stalker could be assault, while in R v Ireland , [10] the House of Lords said that in the right situation (specifically, harassing phone calls) silence could be enough. [1] In some situations an act which would otherwise be assault can be mitigated by the language used. In Tuberville v Savage , [11] the defendant reached for his sword and told the claimant that "if it were not [court] time, I would not take such language from you"; it was held that despite the threatening gesture, this meant the claimant was not in immediate danger. The actions must give the claimant reasonable expectation that the defendant is going to use violence; if a fist was raised in front of the claimant, it could be enough. If the fist was raised from inside a police van following arrest, it would not. [12]

Battery

Battery is defined as "the intentional and direct application of force to another person", and has three elements; force, direct application and intent. The courts have also added a requirement of "hostility" or lack of consent in many cases. As with assault, there is no need to show that damage was caused. [2] Any application of physical contact, regardless of harm caused, can constitute force. In Collins v Wilcock , [13] a female police officer took hold of a woman's arm, intending to talk to her on suspicion of soliciting contrary to the Street Offences Act 1959. The woman scratched the female police officer's arm. As the female police officer had gone beyond her duties in grabbing the woman (since she did not intend to charge her with an offence, but was still using force) it was held that this constituted "force". Robert Goff LJ wrote that the fundamental principle is that any person's body is inviolate, except in situations where the bodily contact "[falls] within a general exception embracing all physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life". [4]

The defendant must intend to carry out the act which constitutes trespass for it to be valid. This does not require the defendant to intend harm; in Nash v Sheen , [14] a hairdresser who put a tone rinse on the claimant (when the claimant had given permission for a perm) was found liable in battery after it caused a rash. In Livingstone v Ministry of Defence , [15] the defendant, a soldier, had intended to shoot someone with a baton round, which went wide and hit the claimant. Even though he had not intended to hit the claimant, it was held that because he had intended to fire the baton round in the first place, he was liable. [lower-alpha 1] The final element occasionally added to the tort is the hostility of the action; in Wilson v Pringle , [17] it was decided that the onus is on the claimant to show that the force was hostile, except in such situations where it is self-evident. This was undermined by R v F , in which Robert Goff wrote that he "respectfully doubts whether [the requirement to show hostility] is correct", in line with his comment in Collins. [18]

An extension to battery was given in Wilkinson v Downton , [19] where emotional distress was considered a possible battery despite no physical force being used. The defendant told the claimant (as a practical joke) that her husband had been seriously injured. As a result, the claimant suffered a nervous disorder and was thought to be suicidal for a time. It was held that such an action will be valid under battery where it is calculated to cause physical damage and does so. The principle was extended by Khorasandjian v Bush , [20] in 1993, where there was a risk that the defendant's actions would cause physical or psychiatric damage. The tort set down in Wilkinson is normally considered a separate tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. [21]

False imprisonment

False imprisonment is defined as "depriving the claimant of freedom of movement, without a lawful justification for doing so". Unlike assault and battery, false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability: no intention on the behalf of the defendant is needed, but the imprisonment must be caused by a deliberate act (as decided in Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council , where a faulty lock, not a deliberate act from another party, caused a woman to become trapped in a public toilet) [22] and must be unlawful. The imprisonment of a lawfully convicted criminal is not false, nor is the arrest of a suspect if done in line with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [3]

Imprisonment is considered any restraint on the freedom of movement, for however short a time. In Austin and another v Metropolitan Police Commissioner , [23] seven hours was considered a sufficient period of time to constitute false imprisonment (although the claim was ultimately rejected due to the circumstances of a potentially hostile crowd of demonstrators). [24] The requirement is complete restraint; in Bird v Jones , [25] the defendant fenced off part of a footpath for use as a viewing point for a boat race. The claimant, accustomed to walking across it, climbed into the enclosure; the defendants refused to let him pass. They were found not liable for false imprisonment, as another way across existed. There is on the other hand no requirement that the claimant actually attempt to leave, as in Grainger v Hill , [26] or even that he knows he is being prevented from leaving, as in Meering v Graham-White Aviation Co Ltd . [27] [28]

Defences

There are many defences to trespasses against the person; the stranger are the right of parents to commit assault and battery against their children for "chastisement" under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and the right of the captain of a ship to discipline his crew, as in Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd . [29] There is also a right to eject a trespasser to land using reasonable force, and a defendant is also not liable for "inevitable accidents", as in Stanley v Powell , where a ricocheting pellet was ruled to be accidental. [30] [31] Individuals and bodies will not be liable for imprisonment, battery or assault if doing so in line with statutory authorities, such as the Criminal Law Act 1967. [32]

A commonly used defence for the torts of trespass against the person is that of volenti non fit injuria , or consent. If a claimant participates in a sporting activity in which physical contact is ordinary conduct, such as rugby, they are considered to have consented. This is not the case if the physical contact went beyond what could be expected, as in R v Billinghurst , [33] or where the injuries were suffered not from the claimant's participation in the sport but inadequate safety measures taken, as in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control . [34] The same general rule applies to people who voluntarily take part in fights, although only if the injuries caused are proportionate, as in Lane v Holloway . [35] If the claimant is informed by a doctor of the broad risks of a medical procedure, there will be no claim under trespass against the person for resulting harm caused; the claimant's agreement constitutes "real consent", as in Chatterton v Gerson . [36] [37] Consent for medical procedures is different in cases where the claimant does not have the mental capacity to consent. In F v West Berkshire Health Authority , [38] it was held that in such situations the requirements are that there "must be a necessity to act when it is not practical to communicate with the assisted person ... [and] the action taken must be such as a reasonable person would in all the circumstances take, acting in the best interests of the assisted person". [39]

Self-defence is also a valid defence to trespasses against the person, assuming that it constituted the use of "reasonable force which they honestly and reasonably believe is necessary to protect themselves or someone else, or property". [40] The force used must be proportionate to the threat, as ruled in Cockroft v Smith . [41] If the action is undertaken to prevent a crime, Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 permits it assuming that it is "reasonable under the circumstances". [42]

Trespass to goods

Trespass to goods is defined as "wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another". It is covered not only by the common law, but also by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which was written to clear up the confusing rules on trespass to goods which had evolved over the centuries. [5] It is similar to the tort of conversion, which covers the interference with goods in a way which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner. [43] "Physical interference" is usually the taking or destroying of goods, but can be as minor as touching or moving them in the right circumstances. In Kirk v Gregory , [44] the defendant moved jewellery from one room to another, where it was stolen. The deceased owner's executor successfully sued her for trespass to goods. Goods cover almost any physical object, including animals, as in Slater v Swann , [45] but not organs, as in AB & Ors v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust . [46] "Possession" has the standard legal meaning, referring to the claimant's right to use, control or deal with the item. This can include owners, but also bailees. [47]

It is unknown what mental element is expected in cases of trespass to goods; while trespass to the person requires intent, the requirements for trespass to goods have never been tested in court. The common remedy is damages, which may be awarded regardless of if any actual harm is suffered; where there is damage, the defendant will only be liable if he could have reasonably foreseen it, as in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (No 5) . [48] Valid defences are those of statutory authority, consent, where it is necessary to interfere with the goods, or jus tertii . [49]

Trespass to land

Trespass in English (and Welsh) law is mostly a civil tort rather than a criminal offence. The circumstances in which it is a criminal offence are usually trespass on educational premises, railway property, protected sites, etc. [50] [51] [ failed verification ]

In English law, trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. While most trespasses to land are intentional, in League Against Cruel Sports v Scott , [52] the courts decided that it could also be committed negligently. Accidental trespass also incurs liability, with an exception for entering land adjoining a road unintentionally (such as in a car accident), as in River Wear Commissioners v Adamson . [53] Although previously a pure tort, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created some circumstances in which trespass to land can also be a crime. [6]

Land is defined as the surface, subsoil, airspace and anything permanently attached to the land, such as houses. The rights of landowners over airspace are not unlimited; in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd , [54] the action for trespass failed because the violation of airspace took place several hundred metres above the land. This was backed up by the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides that it is not trespass if the aircraft is flying at a reasonable height. [55] An overhanging crane can constitute trespass, as in Woolerton v Costain , [56] as can an advertising sign, as in Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co . [57] Possession does not necessarily mean the ownership of land, but the right to eject or exclude others from it. [58]

Interference

The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. [59] "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land. [60] For the purposes of trespass, the person who owns the land on which a road rests is treated as the owner; it is not, however, a trespass to use that road if public. In Hickman v Maisey , [61] it was established that any use of a road that went beyond using it for its normal purpose could constitute a trespass, but this was altered by DPP v Jones . [62] Lord Irvine, giving the leading judgment, said that "the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, providing that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by reasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass; within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway". [63]

Defences

There are several defences to trespass to land; licence, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii . Licence is express or implied permission, given by the possessor of land, to be on that land. If a licence is lawfully revoked, [64] a licence-holder becomes a trespasser if they remain on the land. Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest. Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed by the claimant, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard . [65] The exception to this defence is if the claimant is a tenant and the defendant a landlord who had no right to give the claimant his lease. [66] Necessity is the situation in which it is vital to commit the trespass; in Esso Petroleum Co v Southport Corporation , [67] the captain of a ship committed trespass by allowing oil to flood a shoreline. This was necessary to protect his ship and crew, however, and the defence of necessity was accepted. [68]

Notes

  1. ↑ This application is known as transferred malice. [16]

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, however, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher"; that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.

<i>Wilkinson v Downton</i>

Wilkinson v Downton[1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is an English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. At the time, this was not covered under the law of negligence.

<i>Letang v Cooper</i>

Letang v Cooper[1964] EWCA Civ 5 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupiers' Liability Act 1957</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability. The result of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee, the Act was introduced to Parliament as the Occupiers' Liability Bill and granted the Royal Assent on 6 June 1957, coming into force on 1 January 1958. The Act unified several classes of visitors to property and the duty of care owed to them by the occupier, as well as codifying elements of the common law relating to this duty of care. It also covered the duty owed to parties to a contract entering the property and ways of excluding the liability for visitors. The Act introduced an element of liability for landlords who failed to maintain their properties and were as a result responsible for the injury of a non-tenant, something counter to the previous common law rule in English law. The Act is still valid law, and forms much of the law relating to occupiers' liability in English law along with the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupiers' Liability Act 1984</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability for trespassers. In British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877, the House of Lords had decided that occupiers owed a duty to trespassers, but the exact application of the decision was unclear. The matter was then referred to the Law Commission for a report, and as a result the Occupiers' Liability Bill was introduced to Parliament by Lord Hailsham on 23 June 1983. The Act was given the Royal Assent on 13 March 1984 as the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 and came into force on 13 May.

Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects"; public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual's rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury suffered, while public nuisance does.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span>

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

References

  1. 1 2 Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 300.
  2. 1 2 Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 302.
  3. 1 2 Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 306.
  4. 1 2 Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 26.
  5. 1 2 Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 314.
  6. 1 2 Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 326.
  7. ↑ [1964] 2 All ER 292
  8. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 24.
  9. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 25.
  10. ↑ [1998] AC 147
  11. ↑ [1669] 1 Mod Rep 3
  12. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 301.
  13. ↑ [1984] 3 All ER 374
  14. ↑ [1953] CLY 3726
  15. ↑ [1984] NILR 356
  16. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 303.
  17. ↑ [1987] QB 237
  18. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 27.
  19. ↑ [1897] 2 QB 57
  20. ↑ [1993] QB 727
  21. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 28.
  22. ↑ [1958] 1 WLR 623
  23. ↑ 2007 EWCA Civ 989
  24. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 304.
  25. ↑ [1845] 7 QB 742
  26. ↑ [1838] 4 Bing (NC) 212
  27. ↑ [1919] 122 LT 44
  28. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 305.
  29. ↑ [1953] 1 All ER 1021
  30. ↑ [1891] 1 QB 86
  31. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 32.
  32. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 309.
  33. ↑ [1978] Crim LR 553
  34. ↑ [2001] QB 1134
  35. ↑ [1967] 3 AER 129
  36. ↑ [1981] 1 ALL ER 257
  37. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 33.
  38. ↑ [1990] 2 AC 1 HL
  39. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 34.
  40. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 308.
  41. ↑ [1705] 2 Salk 642
  42. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 37.
  43. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 318.
  44. ↑ [1876] 1 Ex D 55
  45. ↑ [1730] 3 Stra 872
  46. ↑ [2005] Lloyds Rep Med 1
  47. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 315.
  48. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 316.
  49. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 317.
  50. ↑ http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05116/SN05116.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  51. ↑ "Trespassing | MyLawyer".
  52. ↑ [1985] 2 All ER 489
  53. ↑ [1877] 2 App Cas 743
  54. ↑ [1978] 1 QB 479
  55. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 320.
  56. ↑ [1970] 1 WLR 411
  57. ↑ [1957] 2 QB 334
  58. ↑ Bermingham & Brennan (2008), p. 39.
  59. ↑ Smith & Keenan (2004), p. 513.
  60. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 321.
  61. ↑ [1900] 1 QB 752
  62. ↑ [1999] 2 AC 240
  63. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 322.
  64. ↑ A simple licence can be revoked provided that reasonable time is given to leave. However, a licence that is linked to a proprietary interest in the land is irrevocable. Where a licence is given under a contract, any revocability will depend on the terms of the contract.
  65. ↑ ([849] 13 QB 945;
  66. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 324.
  67. ↑ [1956] AC 28
  68. ↑ Elliott & Quinn (2007), p. 325.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.