BPP GDL – Tort Law Exam Notes
Trespass to the Person
à Actionable per se i.e. without proof of damage. Require an act to have been committed; an
omission will not suffice.
Battery
Direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the claimant without lawful
justification.
- Intentional Act
• Letang v Cooper. Must not be negligence.
• Intention relates to contact and not level of harm sustained – Wilson v Pringle.
• Intention to apply force includes subjective recklessness; i.e. the defendant realises
their act is highly likely to lead to an application of force – Iqbal v Prison Officers.
• Doctrine of transferred malice applies – Livingstone v MOD
- Direct
• Wide definition. Scott v Shepherd – Direct act = Application of force that is a direct
and immediate result of the defendant’s actions. Sufficient connection between D’s
act and damage.
- Application of Force
• Any physical contact will constitute force. No need for there to be actual damage.
• Cole v Turner - least touching of another amounts to an application of force.
- Extra Requirement of Hostility
• Wilson v Pringle: - No need for ill will. To be a battery, application of force must go
beyond the bounds of generally acceptable everyday conduct.
- Unlawful – See Defences
Assault
An act of the defendant which directly and intentionally causes the claimant to apprehend an
immediate battery or physical contact.
- Intentional Act
• Includes intention and subjective recklessness.
• R v Wilson – Words alone can be enough for assault.
• R v Ireland – Silence can amount to assault.
• Tuberville v Savage – Words can negate the assault.
- Causes the Claimant to Apprehend an Immediate Battery
• A threat to harm in the future is unlikely to be an assault.
• Thomas v NUM: Must actually fear. Must be an immediate and pressing threat.
• Objective test – based not on what the actual claimant feared but what a reasonable
claimant would have apprehended in those circumstances. Would a reasonable
person in the claimant’s position have feared immediate battery?
- Unlawful – See Defences
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 1 of 21
,False Imprisonment
False imprisonment is an act of the defendant that directly and intentionally causes the complete
restriction of the claimant’s liberty without lawful justification.
- Intentional Act
• As with battery and assault, false imprisonment must be direct and intentional. There
has to be an intention to restrain – ex. p Evans
• Iqbal v Prison Officers: Subjective recklessness will suffice.
- Complete Restriction
• Restricted in all directions and confined or constrained within limits imposed by
another - Bird v Jones.
• Not expected to take dangerous or unusual methods of exit.
• Not necessary for there to be mental awareness by the claimant of their plight –
Meering v Graham-White Aviation.
• No need for any force, words can be enough – Davidson v CC N Wales.
- False
• Confinement must be demonstrated to be without lawful justification.
Defences
- Self-Defence
• Used reasonable force in self-protection or to protect another person or property.
• Reasonable force is a question of fact for each case – Lane v Holloway.
• Force must be proportionate – Cockcroft v Smith.
- Consent
• Express vs implied consent.
• Consent may negate a battery in medical treatment and sporting occasions.
• Can you consent to battery in other areas? Unlikely – R v Brown.
- Necessity
• Rare. Avoid an inevitable and irreparable evil.
- Statutory Authority
Rule in Wilkinson v Downton – Residuary Trespass.
- This liability can arise where a defendant deliberately acts or makes a statement which is
calculated to cause physical harm to the claimant and which does in fact achieve that result.
- Not actionable per se, must have suffered a recognisable loss.
- Recklessness not sufficient. Must be intended
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 2 of 21
, General Negligence
Elements
1. Loss or damage of a recognised kind sustained by the claimant.
2. Existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.
3. Breach of duty by the defendant.
4. Proof that the breach caused the damage.
5. Proof that the damage was reasonably foreseeable i.e. not too remote.
6. Defences.
Types of Loss Covered
- Personal injury
- Property damage
- Consequential economic loss.
Role of Public Policy
Considerations the courts take into account in regard to the effect its decisions will have socially,
politically and economically on society as a whole. Policy considerations can narrow or broaden the
scope of claims depending on the prevailing legal mood at the time.
- Floodgates: Fear on the part of the judges that to allow one claim would open the legal
floodgates to a deluge of claims.
- Insurance: Courts are more likely to find a defendant liable if they are or should have been
insured because they will have the means to pay damages.
- ‘Crushing liability’: Refers to the scenario where a defendant is held responsible
disproportionately to the wrong committed e.g. Spartan Steel v Martin
- Defensive practices.
- Deterrence.
- Maintaining high standards.
Duty of Care
Defendant cannot be liable for carelessness unless the law requires them to be careful in the first
place. Look at precedent first.
Precedents
(a) Contractual relationship – Stansbie v Troman.
(b) Parent/child – R v Stone & Dobinson
(c) Employers to employees – Wilson v English
(d) Employees – ICI v Shatwell
(e) Manufacturers to consumers – Donoghue v Stevenson.
(f) Doctors to patients – Cassidy v MoH
(g) Road users – Nettleship v Weston; Fitzgerald v Lane
à If not exact but similar, extend incrementally.
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 3 of 21
Trespass to the Person
à Actionable per se i.e. without proof of damage. Require an act to have been committed; an
omission will not suffice.
Battery
Direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the claimant without lawful
justification.
- Intentional Act
• Letang v Cooper. Must not be negligence.
• Intention relates to contact and not level of harm sustained – Wilson v Pringle.
• Intention to apply force includes subjective recklessness; i.e. the defendant realises
their act is highly likely to lead to an application of force – Iqbal v Prison Officers.
• Doctrine of transferred malice applies – Livingstone v MOD
- Direct
• Wide definition. Scott v Shepherd – Direct act = Application of force that is a direct
and immediate result of the defendant’s actions. Sufficient connection between D’s
act and damage.
- Application of Force
• Any physical contact will constitute force. No need for there to be actual damage.
• Cole v Turner - least touching of another amounts to an application of force.
- Extra Requirement of Hostility
• Wilson v Pringle: - No need for ill will. To be a battery, application of force must go
beyond the bounds of generally acceptable everyday conduct.
- Unlawful – See Defences
Assault
An act of the defendant which directly and intentionally causes the claimant to apprehend an
immediate battery or physical contact.
- Intentional Act
• Includes intention and subjective recklessness.
• R v Wilson – Words alone can be enough for assault.
• R v Ireland – Silence can amount to assault.
• Tuberville v Savage – Words can negate the assault.
- Causes the Claimant to Apprehend an Immediate Battery
• A threat to harm in the future is unlikely to be an assault.
• Thomas v NUM: Must actually fear. Must be an immediate and pressing threat.
• Objective test – based not on what the actual claimant feared but what a reasonable
claimant would have apprehended in those circumstances. Would a reasonable
person in the claimant’s position have feared immediate battery?
- Unlawful – See Defences
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 1 of 21
,False Imprisonment
False imprisonment is an act of the defendant that directly and intentionally causes the complete
restriction of the claimant’s liberty without lawful justification.
- Intentional Act
• As with battery and assault, false imprisonment must be direct and intentional. There
has to be an intention to restrain – ex. p Evans
• Iqbal v Prison Officers: Subjective recklessness will suffice.
- Complete Restriction
• Restricted in all directions and confined or constrained within limits imposed by
another - Bird v Jones.
• Not expected to take dangerous or unusual methods of exit.
• Not necessary for there to be mental awareness by the claimant of their plight –
Meering v Graham-White Aviation.
• No need for any force, words can be enough – Davidson v CC N Wales.
- False
• Confinement must be demonstrated to be without lawful justification.
Defences
- Self-Defence
• Used reasonable force in self-protection or to protect another person or property.
• Reasonable force is a question of fact for each case – Lane v Holloway.
• Force must be proportionate – Cockcroft v Smith.
- Consent
• Express vs implied consent.
• Consent may negate a battery in medical treatment and sporting occasions.
• Can you consent to battery in other areas? Unlikely – R v Brown.
- Necessity
• Rare. Avoid an inevitable and irreparable evil.
- Statutory Authority
Rule in Wilkinson v Downton – Residuary Trespass.
- This liability can arise where a defendant deliberately acts or makes a statement which is
calculated to cause physical harm to the claimant and which does in fact achieve that result.
- Not actionable per se, must have suffered a recognisable loss.
- Recklessness not sufficient. Must be intended
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 2 of 21
, General Negligence
Elements
1. Loss or damage of a recognised kind sustained by the claimant.
2. Existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant.
3. Breach of duty by the defendant.
4. Proof that the breach caused the damage.
5. Proof that the damage was reasonably foreseeable i.e. not too remote.
6. Defences.
Types of Loss Covered
- Personal injury
- Property damage
- Consequential economic loss.
Role of Public Policy
Considerations the courts take into account in regard to the effect its decisions will have socially,
politically and economically on society as a whole. Policy considerations can narrow or broaden the
scope of claims depending on the prevailing legal mood at the time.
- Floodgates: Fear on the part of the judges that to allow one claim would open the legal
floodgates to a deluge of claims.
- Insurance: Courts are more likely to find a defendant liable if they are or should have been
insured because they will have the means to pay damages.
- ‘Crushing liability’: Refers to the scenario where a defendant is held responsible
disproportionately to the wrong committed e.g. Spartan Steel v Martin
- Defensive practices.
- Deterrence.
- Maintaining high standards.
Duty of Care
Defendant cannot be liable for carelessness unless the law requires them to be careful in the first
place. Look at precedent first.
Precedents
(a) Contractual relationship – Stansbie v Troman.
(b) Parent/child – R v Stone & Dobinson
(c) Employers to employees – Wilson v English
(d) Employees – ICI v Shatwell
(e) Manufacturers to consumers – Donoghue v Stevenson.
(f) Doctors to patients – Cassidy v MoH
(g) Road users – Nettleship v Weston; Fitzgerald v Lane
à If not exact but similar, extend incrementally.
Tort Law – Distinction Level Revision Notes | Page 3 of 21
