Answer:

Intro:
Based on the scenario given, there are several issues whereby each claimant may seek their
right to be free from unwanted interference with their bodily integrity and liberty. In this
essay, each claim will be critically analysed and applying possible defences according the
trespass to person, which include assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Anya v Boris – Battery
First of all, one of the issues arise is when Boris pours a bottle of fizzy drink in order to
covering Anya in sticky liquid, which potentially caused a form of trespass, specifically
battery. Anya may have a claim for Boris’s liability. The intentional and direct application of
force applied to another without lawful justification defined as battery. In Cole v Turner
1704, court held that a minor touch can be amounted to battery. In this situation, Boris pours
a bottle of fizzy drinks to Anya considered as a minor touch and hence it fulfilled the criteria
of unlawful force. Additionally, in Collins v Wilcock 1984, court held that battery can be
formed as a direct application force with hostile intent which unreasonable. In facts, Boris
pours the bottle of fizzy drink over Anya’s head is a force which directly applied with
hostility. Thus, Boris might be liable for battery because he covers Anya in sticky liquid.
Add intent (Wilson v Pringle?)
Boris v Cerys – Assault
Apart from that, whether Boris can bring a claim for Cerys’ liability in the event of trespass
to person, specific assault. Assault is defined as an intentional act of defendant which cases
claimant to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate unlawful force. To establish
assault, we need to prove that there are some intentional acts. According to Read v Coker
1853, defendant threatened claimant that if he did not leave, he would break his neck and
court held that defendant’s act amount to assault because defendant is able to attack claimant.
Similarly, Cerys threatened Boris by saying he will mess him up. Secondly, we need to
identify that defendant’s act caused reasonable apprehension of immediate violence. In
Thomas v National Union Mineworkers 1985, the court held that there was no assault
because in the riots on streets, police were around, and it is not reasonable to apprehend
immediate force even rioters made violent gestures at claimant. In facts, Cerys threatened
Boris but there are police officers present nearby, so it is reasonable belief that Cerys’ words
would not be carried out in action. Hence, Cerys did not owe Boris’ liability since action of
Cerys did not amount to assault.
Stphens v Myers, Tuberville v savage and r v Ireland [ condition threat -with the use of word
‘if’ indicating that the condition of the police present has prevented cerys from messing with
Boris, so no intention to mess Boris up
Battery – Boris pushed cerys
Dom v Boris – Battery
Besides that, there are issues arise which is whether Dom can bring a claim for Boris’
liability as it happened result of trespass to person, particularly battery. To prove battery
exist, we need to prove that there are unlawful force being applied. In Williams v Humphrey
1975, it amounted to battery because defendant had clearly intended to touch claimant and
applying unlawful force. In facts, Boris did apply unlawful force by pushing Cerys and
knocking her into Dom. Secondly, direct application must be shown that defendant caused
force to be applied directly on claimant. According to Haystead v Chief Constable of
Derbyshire 2000, the court ruled that battery satisfied because the mother dropped the baby
because of defendant's punch, the direct application is satisfied to the child. Similar to Dom’s
situation, Dom failed down and injuring his ankle is because Boris’ actions. Lastly, intention.
There must be intent to apply force to someone, carelessness resulting in application of force
is not sufficient. It does not matter that defendant did not have the intend to harm, intention to
apply force is sufficient. As discussed in Wilson v Pringle 1987, court held that defendant
was not liable for battery because intention for battery requires prove of hostility. Based on
the situation given, it is reasonable to believe that Boris’s action is conduct with hostility.
Therefore, Boris did owe Dom’s liability since there is a proven of battery for Boris’s action.
Yet, there is an opportunity for Boris to escape his liability that he owes Dom because of his
action caused battery. Boris can argue that the unlawful force he applied to Dom is based on
self-defence because Cerys threatened him first. In Lane v Holloway 1968, claimant assault
defendant’s wife by calling her ‘monkey-faced tart’ and defendant hit claimant and caused
claimant need 19 stiches to close up his wound. In here, court held that self-defence not
accepted because of excessive force being used. In Boris situation, he cannot prove that the
assault that conducted by Cerys is established and hence the defence of self-defence do not
appropriate to Boris since Boris cannot show that he was attacked and there was a need to
defend himself and that he used reasonable force.
Ezra v Boris – False imprisonment
Aside from issues between Dom and Boris, whether Ezra can bring a claim for Boris’s
liability in the event of trespass to person, specific false imprisonment. False imprisonment is
defendant intentionally depriving the claimant of his freedom of movement from a particular
place without any lawful excuse. To establish Boris’s liability about false imprisonment, we
need to prove that there is imprisonment. Imprisonment can be satisfied as long as there is
restraint on the claimant’s movement. According to Walker v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner (MPC) 2014, the court held that there is no time limit for false imprisonment,
it can be momentary. In facts, Boris locked Ezra in a room, refuse to allow Ezra to leave
about 5 minutes. Moreover, false imprisonment must be unlawful. Regarding to the facts, it is
clearly can be seen that Boris does not have legal authority to restrain Ezra. Furthermore,
false imprisonment is a strict liability tort and intention is not needed to be prove. In other
words, even though Boris locked Ezra without any intention, Boris might be liable to false
imprisonment.
Bird v Jones – total imprisonment
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison 2000 [applied for intention, if boris claimed that he didn’t
have intention to restrict Ezra’s movement, then strict liability would still apply thus this
element fulfilled.
Conclusion:
To conclude, Anya may claim from Boris because Boris liable for battery by pouring a fizzy
drink to Anya. Moreover, Boris might not be able to claim from Cerys for assault because he
failed to prove that Cerys’s action will cause reasonable apprehension of immediate violence.
Besides, Boris might be liable for battery by causing Dom fell down and injuring his ankle
and liable for false imprisonment by locking Ezra in a room about 5 minutes.