WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 sample

30 Law of Tort Remedies to trespass to land • Damages and injunctions are the usually remedies for trespass to land. • Orders for Possession: these are a court order and covered by the Civil Procedure Rules Part 55 . They are issued by a court following a successful ‘possession claim against trespassers’. The order will instruct the defendants to leave the land by a particular date. • Self-help (sometimes known as ‘abatement’): this involves the common law right of a land owner or occupier to remove the trespasser themselves. This ‘remedy’ consists of a person using ‘reasonable force’ to remove trespassers. It is not available if the trespass is on a residential property. Possession claim against trespassers The Civil Procedure Rules Part 55.6 state: ‘Where, in a possession claim against trespassers, the claim has been issued against “persons unknown”, the claim form, particulars of claim and any witness statements must be served on those persons by: (a) (i) attaching copies of the claim form, particulars of claim and any witness statements to the main door or some other part of the land so that they are clearly visible; and (ii) if practicable, inserting copies of those documents in a sealed transparent envelope addressed to ‘the occupiers’ through the letter box; or (b) placing stakes in the land in places where they are clearly visible and attaching to each stake copies of the claim form, particulars of claim and any witness statements in a sealed transparent envelope addressed to “the occupiers”.’ Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985) The police had fired a CS gas canister into a shop to force out a dangerous suspect. The gas canister caused the shop to catch fire. The police had not arranged for adequate firefighting equipment to be available so the shop was burned out. A claim was brought for negligence, under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868 , see page 40), and trespass. The High Court held that the police were liable for negligence for failing to provide adequate firefighting equipment. However, the judge rejected liability for trespass, arguing that the defence of necessity was available in an action for trespass because there was no negligence on the part of the police in creating or contributing to the necessity. They did not create the suspect. The judge also rejected liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) because the rule applies only to an ‘escape’ and ‘probably’ does not apply to the intentional or voluntary release of a dangerous thing. KEY CASE Note that American case law is relatively more decided than English law on the defence of necessity. Take care when selecting information from the internet that you know which country case law applies to. GRADE BOOST