TRESSPASS

Sit Dolor Amet

TYPES

PROPERTY/GOODS. PROPERTY/LAND PERSON

TRESSPASS OF LAND
◦ Winfield, “ Trespass to land is the name given to that from of trespass which is constituted by unjustifiable interference with
the possession of land”.
◦ Street, “Intentionally or negligently entering or remaining on , or directly causing contact with land in the possession of
another is a trespass”.
◦ Trespass is both a civil and criminal wrong because it can cause injury , i.e. violation of legal rights as well as damage to one’s
person and property sustainably if a physical attack takes place.
TRESPASS TO LAND
◦ Trespass to land refers to the wrongful interference of one over the property of another without any legal justification. It
should be direct and physical. Trespass to land is more of a right over the possession of property rather than ownership of
property. That is the person who is having actual possession over the property can even has a claim against the owner of that
property for trespass to land. As in the case of Graham vs. Peat the plaintiff was having a possession over the property by way
of a lease which was void. But even after that, he was entitled to bring an action against the defendant for trespass. Who has
entered the premises without any lawful justification, as any possession is a legal possession against the wrongdoer?
ESSENTIALS
ENTRY

UNAUTHORIZED PERSON

INVOLUNTARY ENTRY… NOT LIABLE

INTENTIONAL/ BY MISTAKE…. LIABLE

ENTERS LAWFULLY… REMAINS AFTER RIGHT

CEASED

CONSTRUCTIVE TRESSPASS
Land
◦ Land includes not only the soil itself, but things under it, any building that is fixed to the surface, and such air space above
needed for the normal use of the enjoyment of land any structure on it. In anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkeley
House ( Docklands Developments ) Ltd 1987 for example, the boom of Berkeley’s crane over sailed Anchor Brewhouse’s land
and was help to constitute a trespass. It is not necessary to show damage to obtain an injunction for trespass. Anchor
Brewhouse succeded in obtaining the injunction they were looking for as the court found no special circumstances to prevent
the injunction.
Possessions
◦ The claimant need not own the land, but must be in possession on it . Possession to exclude others from the land and it must
exist at the time the trespass is committed. For ex. If someone trespass on rented ,land doesn’t amount to possession for the
purpose of the trespass i.e. a guest in a hotel.
Interference
◦ The interference must be direct and physical, indirect interference may give rise to an action for negligence or nuisance but
not for trespass.
 DEFENCES OF
TRESSPASS OF LAND
Leave and license
◦ This is a permission which makes lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful. Thus a person who enters the land by way
of license will not be a trespasser. However if that person remains on the land after the license has expired or has been revoked
or he exceeds the condition of the license, that person will become a trespasser. It is a good defense to an action for trespass. A
license only makes an act lawful which , without it, would be unlawful. A license may be either express, as in the case of a
guest in the house, or employed, as in the case of customer entering in a shop.
CONSENT
◦ A person or claimant who agrees to a certain action can’t complain or sue. - Peter v. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. - The
defendant employed a sprinkler system to protect the building from fire. The claimant also occupied the building and
complained when the stock was damaged by water from the sprinklers.
Act of Public Necessity
◦ :- Entry on the land of another person without his constent is justifiable on the ground of public necessity. A person is not
guilty of trespass if he goes on to another’s land to protect life or property during an emergency for ex. A passer by who sees
someone pointing a gun at another person may cross on to the property and sub due the person with the gun someone at the
scene of the traffic accident may go on to private property to pull a victim from one of the vehicles . - Necessity is a defense to
show that it was necessary for the defendant to enter the claimants land . - Trespass may not arise where there is actual /
perceived danger in relation to which steps are taken. - For example, in case of fire , one may get in to another person’s land to
prevent further harm. –
◦ IN RIGBY v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Facts :- A young man broke into a gun shop and armed
himself , the police fired a canister of CS Gas into the shop so as to smoke out the young man unfortunately , the shop caught
fire and the shop keeper sued for damages. Held It was held that the police could on the defense of necessity because the boy
was a cleat threat to the public and since the police had not contributed to the problem , they were not liable it was held that
necessity was a defence provided that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in contributing to the state of
necessity, thus the action for trespass failed.
Prescriptions
◦ In a action for trespass a defendant may plead that he was justified by reason of prescription as by showing a right of common
or right of way over the land,
Special property and easement
◦ A guarantee of easement may enter upon the servant ( sub ordinate) Tenement ( Apartment house ) In order to do necessary
repairs and is a good defence to an action for trespass a land lord doesn’t have the right to enter a tenants apartments whenever
the landlord wants however , the land lord usually has the right to enter make repairs the land lord must arrange a reasonable
time for the repairs but the tenants constants to this couragement is either contained in the lease or is implied from the land
lord assumptions as responsibility for making repairs inside the apartment .
Recaption
◦ If a person takes away the goods of another upon his land he gives to the owner of them an employed liecense to enter for the
purpose of recaption. Similarly if the goods are on the land of another in the pursuance of a felonious (involving, being or
having the nature of a crime ) Act of a third person , the entry will be justifiable .
Re entry on land
◦ An owner who has been wrongfully disposed may re enter on his land and if he does so he can’t be sued for trespass by the
person who has been wrongfully there.
Self defense
◦ If a person has actual position of goods chattels or animals and another wrongfully attempts to take the same from him. He is
justified in using such force as is necessary for the purpose of defending his own position.
Abetment of nuisance
◦ An occupier of land may , with prior notice enter upon an anothers adjoining land for the purpose of reoving the nuisance
upon it.
Authority of law
◦ Acts which would otherwise be trespass are not so when justification is provided for by the law. Where defendant is legally
authorised to enter on to the claimant land by statutiotry authority he can’t be liable for trespass on land. The police have
powers under the police and criminal evidence act 1984 to enter premises and search them. Abuse of the legal authorities
punishable when one had initial authority , then letter did something unlawful. It results in to a doctrine known as ab initio.
Basely v. Clarkson

◦ When the defendant mowed his land, he mistakenly crossed the boundary and mowed the land of his neighbor,
believing it was his land. The defendant’s plea of mistake in claiming trespass to land failed because his act of cutting
grass was intentional even though he made a mistake as to where the boundary was. However, if the entry is proven
to be involuntary then it is not a trespass.
Smith v. Stone

◦ ·         If someone else throws a person on the land of someone else, i.e. his entry is unintentional then he will not be
liable. There is no act of entry by the defendant in such a situation. It is a general presumption that a person who
owns the surface of land owns all the underlying strata. Thus, at the instance of the owner of the surface, an entry
beneath the surface at whatever depth is an actionable trespass. But in some cases, the underlying strata may be in
the possession of a different person.
◦ ·       
Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah
Hiremath

◦   Although entry into the property may be legal, therefore, if possession continues even after permission has been
given, it may amount to trespass ab initio. The corresponding concept of continuity of a civil mistake can be found in
Tort Law. Trespass in torts can be continued. Again, if the entry was legal but is subsequently abused and continued
after the permission has been determined, the infringement may be ab initio.
◦ ·      
   Minister of Health v. Bellotti

◦ A licensee whose license has been terminated or is extinguished by expiry may be sued as a trespasser if, upon
request, he does not vacate and a reasonable time has elapsed.
Madhav Vithal Kudwa vs. Madhavdas Vallabhdas

◦ In this case, the plaintiff was the landlord of the plaintiff. The tenant was living on the first floor of the building;he used to
park his car at the compound of the plaintiff’s building. Therefore the plaintiff pleaded before the court, that the parking of the
car at his compound without his permission was trespass and therefore injunction to restrain the defendant from parking his
vehicle to be granted. The court held that parking of vehicle didn’t cause any trespass. As the building was multi-storeyed
therefore he could use the compound for parking provided that there should be no inconvenience to anyone. 
INTRODUCTION
◦ Trespass, in its widest sense, signifies any transgression or offence against the laws of Nature, of society, or of the country in
which we live, whether relating to a man’s per­son or to his property. But the most obvious acts of trespass are

◦ trespass quare clausum fregit (entry on another's land), and

◦ trespass de bonis asportatis (taking another's goods).
GOODS/CHATTLES
ELEMENTS

LACK OF CONSENT ACTUAL HARM INTENTION

Fouldes v Willoughby
◦ The owner of two horses had come on board a ferry from Birkenhead to Liverpool. The ferryman refused to carry the horses.
The owner refused to take them back on shore, and so the ferryman took the bridle from the owner turned the horses loose at
the landing. The owner stayed put on board, and did not try to get the horses back. He sued the ferryman for conversion.

◦ The judge at the trial told the jury that the defendant ferryman, by taking the horses from the plaintiff and turning them out of
the vessel, had been guilty of a conversion. The ferryman appealed.
Ranson v Kitner
◦ The Exchequer Court held that the ferryman was not guilty of conversion, because there was no interference with the
plaintiff's "general right of dominion" over the horses. “In my opinion,” said Lord Abinger CJ,

◦ “he should have added to his direction, that it was for them to consider what was the intention of the defendant in so doing. It
is a proposition familiar to all lawyers, that a simple asportation of a chattel, without any intention of making any further use
of it, although it may be a sufficient foundation for an action of trespass, is not sufficient to establish a conversion. It has never
yet been held that the single act of removal of a chattel, independent of any claim over it, either in favour of the party himself
or any one else, amounts to a conversion of the chattel.”
◦ Rolfe B gave a now well recognised definition of conversion that it is,
◦ "a taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession".
◦ Instead, the ferryman was liable for trespass.
Moorgate Merchantile v Finch

◦ Moorgate Mercantile Co v Finch and Read: CA 1962

◦ Confiscation of Car used for smuggling
◦ The hirer of a car on hire purchase lent the car to the second defendant who used it to smuggle watches. He was caught and the
car was forfeited by Customs. The court held that the second defendant had converted the car because what he had done would
in all probability have resulted in the owners being deprived of it. He was to be taken to have intended the likely consequences
of his conduct.
JE Hall v Barclay[1937] 3 All ER 620
◦ The claimant in conversion is entitled to be compensated to the extent of the value to him of the
goods of which he has been deprived. This will often appropriately be the market value of the
goods. Where goods are of a kind which can be readily bought in the market the actual market
value will be the appropriate measure; otherwise the replacement value in a comparable state or
the original cost minus depreciation will be the standard. Where the actual value of the claimant’s
interest in the goods is less than the market value he may be awarded the value of that interest
and not the higher market value.
◦ ‘The general rule is that a plaintiff whose property is irreversibly converted has vested in him a
right to damages for conversion measured by the value of the property at the date of conversion’.
◦ It makes a real difference whether we explain the claim as based upon unjust enrichment or a
tort.