WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 sample

Torts connected to land 27 1. Direct interference Trespass requires direct interference with land, such as physical entry, throwing something onto the land or, if given the right to enter the land, remaining there when the right has been withdrawn. For instance, if a person plants a tree that overhangs a neighbouring property, it is indirect interference and likely to be a private nuisance rather than trespass. However, if someone cuts down a tree and throws the branches into their neighbour’s garden, that is direct interference and is likely to be a trespass. 2. Voluntary interference with land It can only be trespass if the person has voluntarily entered the land. In Stone v Smith (1647) , it was held that a person who was forcibly carried or thrown onto land by others was not trespassing. 3. Awareness of trespassing is not needed An innocent trespass is still a trespass. Mistake is no defence in trespass. 4. No need for the claimant to experience harm or loss Trespass to land is actionable per se (in itself) . This means that there is no need for the defendant to have caused the claimant any damage or loss. Trespass above or below the land Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos is Latin for ‘who owns the land owns to the heavens and down to hell’. It is controversially used to explain the common law principle that ownership of land includes the air above it and the ground below it. This principle has been restricted through precedent and statute. Lord Hope in Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA (2010) stated that the phrase ‘still has value in English law as encapsulating, in simple language, a proposition of law which has commanded general acceptance’. Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum (1954) A small oil tanker ran aground in poor weather conditions, due to carrying a heavy load and having a steering fault. Oil was deliberately discharged to free the tanker. The oil drifted onto the claimant’s land. The claimant brought an action for nuisance, negligence and trespass. The Court of Appeal decided by 2 to 1 that the defendants were liable for negligence, not trespass. Denning LJ stated that the defendants were not liable for trespass because: ‘(t)his discharge of oil was not done directly on to their foreshore, but outside in the estuary. It was carried by the tide on to their land, but that was only consequential, not direct. Trespass, therefore, does not lie.’ KEY CASE Conway v George Wimpey & Co (1951) One of the defendant’s lorry drivers had given a lift to the claimant, who worked for another company. Both were working on an aerodrome. This was expressly prohibited by company rules. The claimant claimed that, while dismounting from the lorry, he was injured due to the negligence of the driver. The Court of Appeal held that, because there was no proof that the defendant knew or must have known that passengers from other companies were being given lifts, the claimant was a trespasser while on the lorry and, as a result, the defendants were not under any duty of care to him. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that a person could be liable for trespass even if they were mistaken about the ownership of land or wrongly believed they had permission to enter the land. KEY CASE