L1 Breach of Step 1 – 4

Statutory Duty
L2 Vicarious Ans Structure
Liability 1) definition of VL (assignment incident 1), established had
to satisfied two situations
2) 1st: D stands in a particular relationship to TP
- employee => establish!
- is TP an IC worked for D? => control test & overall
impression test (slide 5-7)
- other cases: test of akin to employment relationship (5
incidents) (slide 8)
3) 2nd: TP was committed in the course of employment
- old Salmond test
- new Lister Rule (WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various
Claimant)

Other scenarios:
- employees on loan (slide 14)
- employer- contractor relationship: D hired IC to work for P
(slide 15)
- Principle-agent (slide 17)
-Partnership (slide 17)

L3 Nuisance Ans Structure

1) Issue
2) Who can sue? Hunter v Canary Wharf
3) who can be sued? *if case complicated
4) “interference like must be substantial and unreasonable in
order to be actionable, factors to consider as follow:”
5) Factors:
- actual damage? (poisonous gas, cold air from AC, water
leakage)
- nature and intensity regarding timing and duration (Dust or
smoke is more likely taken seriously and treated as
unreasonable interference by court while court expects
greater tolerance to odor or noise) p.694
-Locality (slide 8-9)
- Hypersensitivity (ordinary person’s standard on sensitivity,
Capital Prosperous Ltd v Sheen Cho Kwong)
- Malice/anti-social (reasonable purpose or malicious
purpose? Christine v Davey)
5) Causation and remoteness
-but-for test
- remoteness under Wagon Mound Test
- thin-skull rule applied
6) Defence (slide 16)
1
 7) Remedies (*social utility/public benefir may be relevant
for issue of remedy, Miller v Jakson)
L4 The Rule in Ans Structure
Rylands v 1) RvF applies when D, in course of non-ordinary use of his
Fletcher land, brings something onto that land, and keeps or collects
there, if it escapes, it is likely to do mischief and the type of
harm is reasonable foreseeable. Cambridge Water v Eastern
Counties Leather
2) Who can sue?
- P must have an interest in the land affected by escaper,
have exclusive possession Hunter v Canary Wharf
3) Who can be sued
- D, has control of place from the escape emanates, maybe
owner, occupier as well as licensee Rainham Chemical v
Belvedere Fish
4) to be actionable, 5 elements essential (Stannard v Gore)
(slide 6-13)
5) Defence
L5 Trespass to Ans Structure
Land 1) When a person intentionally enters or remains on, or
directly causes any physical matter to come into contact with
the land in the actual possession of another person, he
commits trespass to land. Three elements are required to
establish the tort
2) Possession over land
3) unauthorised, direct and immediate interference
4) intention
5) Defence
6) Remedies
L6 Trespass to 1) Trespass to goods: focus on every direct forcible injury to
Goods, goods and acts disturbing possession of owner;
Conversion, three essential elements:
Detinue - P must have possession or immediate right (side 4)
- direct, immediate interference with P’s possession (*phy
contact or affectation)
- intention to interfere with a chattel (cyber trespass) (slide
7)

2) Conversion: deprivation possession that inconsistent with

right of owner
- P must have possession or immediate right, ownership
unnecessary (slide 8)
- three-fold features (slide 9)
- which condition falls into?
Taking/receiving (slide 11)
Transfer/delivery (slide 13)
2
 Misuse/alternation/destruction (slide 14)
Refusal to return (slide 14)

3) Detinue: demand return, wrongful detention

Three conditions to fulfill
- P must have immediate right to possession at the time of
demand
- Demand of P (slide 17)
- D refusal (slide 17)

4) possible defence? Jus Tertii

5) Remedies
L7 Trespass to 1) Battery
Person and Unwanted, harmful or offensive bodily harm - Collins v
related matters Wilcock [1984]
“any touching of another person, however slight, may
amount to a battery”
“the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of
violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and the
lowest stage of it”
“the effect is that everybody is protected not only against
physical unjust but against any form of physical
molestation”

- intentional
- directness of interference
- bodily contact

2) Assault
-"an overt action, by word or deed, indicating an immediate
intention to commit a battery and with the capacity to carry
the threat into action,, (Home Office v Wainwright [2002]

-P’s apprehension of immediate force must be reasonable in

the circumstances (ie, D must have an apparent ability to
carry out the threat immediately) Thomas v National of
Mineworkers

3) False imprisonment
-D intentionally causes P to be restrained or confined within
a particular limited area
Features: a and b are must, c and d are not required
a) Total restraint is required (Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742;
鐘振興 對 黎 秀 峯 [2014] CHKEC 856); where the only
means of escape is unreasonable (eg, involving danger to P),
the restraint is total
3
b) The restraint must occur against P’s will (Herd v
Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67: P
worked for D in a shift system – P refused to do certain
work and asked to leave the mine – D refused before the end
of his shift – no FI as P consented due to the contract)

c) The use of force, direct physical contact or the threat of

force is not required (R v Chan Wing Kuen [1995] 1 HKC
470)
-P’s awareness of the confinement 限制；關押；禁閉；監
禁 is not required, although it will affect the damages
Murray v Ministry of Defence

4) Wilkinson Tort
- The tort action in Wilkinson v Downton sometimes called
as Intentional infliction of injury. It is concerned with non-
direct interference with person, and provides a general
theory of liability for such interference.
- From the judged statement in Wilkinson v Downton, we
can see that the act in question must be (1)wilful, and (2)
calculated to cause harm to the plaintiff and (3) there is
actual harm. It has never been clear what degree of intention
(or recklessness) that this implies. Because on the facts of
Wilkinson v Downton, there is no evidence that the
defendant actually intended to cause nervous shock.
Something less than actual intention would seem to satisfy
the requirement.

- recent case in UK, which is called O (A Child) v Rhodes

[2016] regarded as a landmark case and provide revised
formula of Wilkinson Tort. 3 essential elements must be
proved in order to make the tort actionable
- Conduct element :
words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there is
no justification or excuse
Mental element :
requiring an intention to cause at least severe mental or
emotional distress
Consequence element :
requiring physical harm or recognized psychiatric illness

- On Conduct element, the respondent's conduct was not

directed at the claimant since the book was intended for a
wide audience. (…)
The law protects the freedom to report the truth. No
4
 Wilkinson tort liability would arise unless the speech is
deceptive, threatening or abusive. The right to report the
truth is in itself a good justification
- On Mental element, the court explained the mental element
of the tort action rather differently than that in Wright J's
formulation, which incorporated the notion of imputed
intent. Judge Lady Hale overruled that concept in old
Wilkinson as being outdated, and vague, and replaced it with
a requirement of actual intent. What was required was an
intention to cause psychiatric harm, or at minimum, severe
mental or emotional distress. Recklessness was seen as an
unhelpful and uncertain concept, and insufficient for the
mental element of this tort.
- On Consequence element, the court emphasized that what
was required as a consequence was physical or recognized
psychiatric harm.

5) Defence
6) Damages (test of directness)
L8 Confidentiality - Breach of confidence
and Privacy
- Misuse of private information (2 Stages approach)
1st: nature of info; no need pre-existing legal relationship;
detriment is water down
2nd: info protected by right to private and family life? If yes,
yield to the right of freedom of expression?
L9 Defamation: Ans structure
Elements 1) Issue
2) elements to established in defamation (defamatory
matters of and concerning P, published by D to TP)
3) what statement mean? (slide 11, Lee Ching V Lau May
Ming)
4) Defamatory statement 1 from case
-literal meaning
-implied meaning (slide 8-10, defamatory meaning; slide 12,
Innuendo; slide 13-15 reference to P)

L10 Defamation: 5) Defence

Defences and -truth/justification
Remedies -absolute privilege
-qualified privilege (interest or duty, legal, social or moral to
make; TB p.792)
- Reynolds defence (3 questions to ask, Jameel v Wall
Street)
- Reportage (both sides of public disputes?)
5
 - Fair/honest comment
- Statutory defence

6) Remedies
- Compensatory damages : Special and General
- Nominal damage
- Aggravated damage
- psy. injury for libel
- Exemplary damage (the 2nd category of calculate to make
profit)
- Injunction (discretionary; likelihood)
- Order to disclosure of full info (internet cases)
L11 Economic - Inducing breach of contract
Torts I
- Causing loss by unlawful means (unlawful means against
TP, affect TP to deal with P)

-Unlawful means conspiracy (Share intention of Ds of using

unlawful means to cause loss to P)

-Lawful means conspiracy

L12 Economic - Deceit (misrep. , P relied, and loss)
Torts II
- Passing off (misrep. caused damage to gdwill of P)

- Malicious falsehood (Publish written or oral falsehood with

malice, to cause harm in the ordinary course of business)