






Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Trespass to land mean interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some tangible object. If the interference is not direct but consequential, the wrong may be a nuisance. To throw stones upon one’s neighbour’s premises is a wrong of trespass; to allow stones from a ruinous chimney to fall upon those premises is the wrong of a nuisance.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
TOPIC PAGE NO.
Trespass to land mean interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some tangible object. If the interference is not direct but consequential, the wrong may be a nuisance. To throw stones upon one’s neighbour’s premises is a wrong of trespass; to allow stones from a ruinous chimney to fall upon those premises is the wrong of a nuisance. Similarly, planting a tree on another’s land is a trespass but if a person plants a tree over his land and its roots orbranches escape on the land of the neighbour , that will be a nuisance.
Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some material object, e.g., throwing of stones on another persons land, driving nails into the wall, placing ladder against the wall or leaving debris upon the roof, allowing cattle to Stay on another person’s land is also a trespass. It is, however, no trespass when there is no interference with the possession and the defendant has been merely deprived of certain facilities like gas and electricity. It may be noted that the action for cattle trespass can be brought only by the occupier of land. Persons other than the occupier, such as his family members, guests or strangers on his land can sue under the science rule or for negligence and for cattle trespass. In Cox V Burbidge1 the plaintiff a young child was kicked and injured by the defendant’s horse that trespassed on the highway. This was a trespass only against the owner of the land over which the highway ran. The child was a mere user of the highway and it was held that towards him the defendant could not be made liable unless scienter or negligence could be proved. Going beyond the purpose for which a person for which a person has entered certain premises or crossing the boundary where he has the authority to go amounts to trespass. Thus if a person who is allowed to sit in a drawing room enters the bedroom without any justification the entry into bedroom is a trespass. However if the area to which a person is lawfully invited and one which is the prohibited area has not been properly marked a person does not become a trespasser merely by his going beyond the area of invitation.
When a person enters certain premises under the authority of some law and after having entered there, abuses that authority by committing some wrongful act there, he will be considered to be a trespasser ab initio to that property. Even though he had originally lawfully entered thee, the law considers him to be a trespasser from the very beginning and presumes that he had gone there with that wrongful purpose in mind.
ENTRY WITH A LICENCE
Entering certain premises with the authority of the person in possession amounts to a license and the defendant cannot be made liable for trespass. Permitting a person to cut a tree on one’s land or permitting a person by the cinema management to see a film are examples of license.
The claimant was attending Doncaster races, when he was removed from the racecourse by the defendant. The claimant had entered the racecourse, which was owned by the employer of the defendant under licence and on the basis that he had paid one guinea to be able to do so. It was argued that the payment and the licence granted the grantee the right to remain on the racecourse for the duration of the races. The owner of the racecourse subsequently decided that he wanted the claimant to leave the defendant informed him of this. After leaving a reasonable period of time for the claimant to leave, the defendant, without using unreasonable force removed him from the racecourse. The guinea paid by the claimant was not however, refunded. At first instance, the matter was settled in favour of the defendant, the claimant appealed.
The issue in this circumstance was whether a licence which was entered into subject to a payment of money could be revoked unilaterally.
It was held that a licence, even if subject to the payment of money, could be revoked at any time and without the return of the money. In order for the right to enter and remain on property to be enforceable by a person in the claimant’s position, the right must be granted by deed. A licence without this formality was not enforceable. The appeal was dismissed.
This is an English land law case, concerning licences "in" land, specifically ticketed events. The appeal court confirmed that there is no right, based on e.g. land owner's discretion as to determining trespassers, to remove the attendee if the venue operator is mistaken as to the attendee's right to attend.
Mr Hurst bought a ticket for 17 March 1913's screening of Lake Garda in a London cinema of Picture Theatres Ltd. The manager honestly believed he had not paid for his seat. He was forced to leave, and then he claimed trespass to the person. The theatre argued that even though it revoked (breached) the licence, a contract relating to a person's right to be somewhere, its mistaken belief could render Hurst a trespasser (if so reasonable force could be used to remove him).
The issue was whether the claimant was entitled to damages under trespass to the person.
Channell J held, with a jury, Hurst could get damages.
They committed an assault upon him in law. It was not of a violent kind, because, like a wise man, [Hurst] gave way to superior force and left the theatre… it was for the jury to give him such a sum as was right for the assault which was committed upon him, and for the serious indignity to a gentleman of being seized and treated in this way in a place of public resort.
Buckley LJ gave the specific enforceability of a contractual licence as the reason why it cannot be revoked in breach of contract
In Hounsnow v Twickenham , the Sir Robert Megarry V-C held that a contractual licence did not have to be specifically enforceable to be irrevocable, as long as the contract carried an implied obligation not to revoke
Licences cases
Facts
Perera was the tenant of two rooms in a house owned by Vandiyar, where he lived with his wife and two-year old child. Vandiyar cut off the gas and electricity supply to the rooms and prevented Perera from switching the supply back on. After two days of discomfort, Perera left the premises and returned five days later when the county court ordered the supply be restored. Perera was awarded damages for breach of contract and punitive damages on the basis that Vandiyar’s acts had amounted to a malicious tort. Vandiyar appealed.
Issues
Perera contended that cutting off the gas and electricity supply amounted to a tort of eviction, because his continued occupation of the premises became impossible without heating and lighting. He also argued having the utility supplies cut off amounted to a breach of the landlord’s covenant to allow the tenant to enjoy quiet enjoyment of the premises. Vandiyar maintained he had cut the gas and electricity supplies because he had believed the tenant and his family were going on holiday. He denied his actions were designed to force the eviction of the tenant, and nor did they amount to a breach of covenant.
Decision/Outcome
Cutting off the gas and electricity supply amounted to a breach of contract and Perera was, therefore, entitled to damages for breach of covenant. The landlord’s actions, however, did not amount to a tort because there had been no direct interference with the leasehold premises, and so there had been no direct trespass. Deliberate, severe breach of Vandiyar’s obligations as a landlord entitled Perera to damages for breach of contract, but there was no liability in tort.
Trespass can be faced by people innumerable times in a day, but what is important is to truly understand the nature of trespassed act, property, loss and impact of it on the plaintiff. If the nature of the act is itself suggestive of a wrongful incident, voluntarily undertaken to constrain the enjoyment of the right to exclude from the private property, then evaluation of all possible recourses to recoup the damage should be identified. The four tests, when deciding trespass disputes, courts should evaluate the following factors: (1) the nature and character of the trespass; (2) the nature of the protected property; (3) the amount and substantiality of the trespass; and (4) the impact of the trespass on the owner’s property interest.
It would help to uncover various facets and understand the dimensions that trespass law is clutching in its circuitous surrounding so as to loosen the screws and solve cases and situations in an efficacious manner. The true meaning of each term needs to be understood to evaluate trespass and resolve the cases by applying the relevant doctrines.