These are the cases discussed in lectures relevant to each tort.
Trespass to Person
Trespass in General
Hutchins v Maughan [1947] VLR 131
P's dogs died after eating poisoned baits unlawfully laid by D.
Interference to P must be a direct result (no intervening acts) of D’s action, NOT conseqential
Interference to P must be a direct result (no intervening acts) of D’s action, NOT conseqential
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 W Bl 892
P threw lit firework into crowd, others deflected it, eventually injuring P’s eye.
D act had directly injured P as the intermediary actions were involuntary.
D act had directly injured P as the intermediary actions were involuntary.
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 3 All ER 890
P hit a woman who was holding a child, causing her to drop the child, which was injured.
Physical contact is not required if the D's actions lead to unlawful force being applied to the victim.
Physical contact is not required if the D's actions lead to unlawful force being applied to the victim.
McHale v Watson (1964) 111 CLR 384
D threw a matal dart, unintentionaly injuring P's eye.
Held that intent to harm is not necessary; only a voluntary act is needed for trespass.
Held that intent to harm is not necessary; only a voluntary act is needed for trespass.
Venning v Chin (1964) 111 CLR 384
Driver hit pedestrian; victim sued for trespass instead of negligence claim.
Court ruled negligence, not trespass, applied; required Pprove intent intent for trespass claim in motor accident cases
Court ruled negligence, not trespass, applied; required Pprove intent intent for trespass claim in motor accident cases
Assault
Croucher v Cachia [2016] NSWCA 132
P alleged that D had committed assault by threatening and gesturing aggressively towards him.
Affirmed that assault requires an act that causes reasonable apprehension of harm.
Affirmed that assault requires an act that causes reasonable apprehension of harm.
Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451
Barton signed contract under Armstrong’s death threats over phone
Confirmed that a person can be liable for assault even if no physical harm occurs.
Confirmed that a person can be liable for assault even if no physical harm occurs.
State of New South Wales v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 228
A police officer shot P who was carrying a knife under mistake belief of imminent threat
Held, an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity of self-defence can preclude liability, even if it is later shown that the perceived threat did not exist.
Held, an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity of self-defence can preclude liability, even if it is later shown that the perceived threat did not exist.
Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11
D threatened “Im taking you to my mate’s house. He will really fix you up.“
Held, that threats of future harm can still constitute assault if they create ongoing fear.
Held, that threats of future harm can still constitute assault if they create ongoing fear.
Forde v Skinner (1830) 4 Car & P 239, 172 ER 687
Cutting someone’s hair without consent was found to be battery.
Demonstrates that physical interference, even without injury, can constitute battery.
Demonstrates that physical interference, even without injury, can constitute battery.
Trevitt v NSW TAFE Commission [2001] NSWCA 363
A violent role-play in a TAFE class- a student had a metal object put to his head as if it were a gun.
Held, that minimal assault occurred, but a clear battery was committed.
Held, that minimal assault occurred, but a clear battery was committed.
NSW v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57
A police officer stormed into a garage and pointed a gun at a woman, causing immediate fear.
Held,an assault due to the immediate apprehension of harm.
Held,an assault due to the immediate apprehension of harm.
Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205
A conditional threat (“I will cut you to bits if you try to hit me”) was by D to P.
Held, conditional threats can be assault if excessive or unjustified.
Held, conditional threats can be assault if excessive or unjustified.
Mbasogo v Logo Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1370
President of Guinea alleged he was put in fear for his life due to an attempted coup by mercenaries.
The claim failed as there was no immediate or overt act of assault.
The claim failed as there was no immediate or overt act of assault.
ACN 087 528 774 P/L v Chetcuti [2008] VSCA 274
A railway security guard chased a trespasser who fell and was injured.
Introduced requirement that D must have a subjective intention to cause the P to apprehend imminent harmful contact
Introduced requirement that D must have a subjective intention to cause the P to apprehend imminent harmful contact
Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441
Can threats made over the phone or electronic communication constitute assault.
It was held that indirect threats can constitute assault if they cause immediate fear of harm.
It was held that indirect threats can constitute assault if they cause immediate fear of harm.
Cruse v State of Victoria [2019] VSC 574
A police officer in a violent raid threatened a suspect by saying, "There’s more to come."
Held, this constituted an "assault by words" as it created apprehension of harm.
Held, this constituted an "assault by words" as it created apprehension of harm.
Battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 375
Defined battery as any unlawful touching, reinforcing that even minor, unconsented physical contact may constitute a tort.
Hutchins v Maughan [1947] pp
Held that indirect harm is not trespass but a negligence claim.
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 W Bl 892
A person who threw a lit firecracker, which was subsequently tossed by others, was still liable in trespass because the intermediary actions were involuntary.
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 3 All ER 890
Hitting a woman who was holding a child, causing her to drop the child, was considered battery against the child.
False Imprisonment
Ruddock v Taylor (2005) 222 CLR 612
P held in detention for 165 days under Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Held, FI is a trespassory tort — the mere act of detaining someone unlawfully is enough for liability, regardless of intent or mistake
Held, FI is a trespassory tort — the mere act of detaining someone unlawfully is enough for liability, regardless of intent or mistake
New South Wales v Robinson [2019] HCA 46
Police officers mistakenly arrested P for breach of his bail conditions.
Held, arrest was unlawful (depite good faith) and P was falsley imprisoned (a strict liability tort)
Held, arrest was unlawful (depite good faith) and P was falsley imprisoned (a strict liability tort)
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 W Bl 892
A person who threw a lit firecracker, which was subsequently tossed by others, was still liable in trespass because the intermediary actions were involuntary.
Malicious Prosecution, Emotional Distress & Privacy
Trespass to Land & Nuisance
Trespass to Goods, Detinue & Conversion
Economic Torts
Defamation
Misfeasance in Public Office
Strict Liability 1: Vicarious Liability
Strict Liability 2: Non-delagable Duties
Strict Liability 3: Breach of Statutory Duty