INTENTIONAL TORTS
INTENTION
Target of intention: e.g. trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment) neither
harm nor unlawfulness needs to be intended
Level of intention: relevant state of mind
Intention specific to each tort each has its own intention requirement
All trespass torts actionable without proof of damage + consent defence for all
Trespass to the Person: Battery, assault + false imprisonment
BATTERY – unlawful touching of claimant
Requires directly and intentionally brings contact with body of claimant, where contact exceeds
what is lawful, battery is actionable without proof of damage, no need intent of harm, nor even
intent act unlawfully necessary intention is bring about physical contact which unlawfulness of
contact creates wrong liability strict as not require fault but based on intention
Intention of battery= physical contact, battery argued not need intent, recklessly/carelessly
Contact must be direct, does not appear to allow claim for ‘nonfeasance’ (failure to act)
Letang v Cooper [1965]: D drove over claimant whilst he was sunbathing, did not see lawyer for a
long time, limitation period for personal injury so sued for battery, COA rejected claim, need to
intentionally run over trespass of person involves intentional contact
Iqbal v Prison Officers [2009]: COA summarised law, trespass of the person needs an intentional act,
an act of negligence will not suffice, tort, if looking at battery claim need act of striking claimant
(intention sufficient), recklessness as to hitting someone can be sufficient, if do not intend to hit
cannot be sued for battery (but can be sued for negligence), case concerned false imprisonment
need awareness of risk of imprisoning, Iqbal was a prisoner not allowed out of cell on a day when
there was a strike, as not enough staff held not successful as did not intend to keep in cell but due
to strike, there was not reckless with awareness of risk + trespass does not need prove of harm
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
Schoolboy prank, D pulled another 13-year old pupils bag, causing claimant to fall over and suffer hip
injuriesheld hostility necessary element of an actionable battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984]: claimant police officer cautioned D prostitute, D walked away, officer took
hold of her arm, D scratched officer’s restraining arm D argued officer committed battery held
battery, no implied power for officer to detain D for a caution, beyond accepted conduct
Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilization) [1990]
Patient had mental age of a child, formed sexual relationship with male patient, would be
undesirable to prevent relationship, patient unable to cope with pregnancy, but she could not
comprehend and validly consent necessity insufficient defence as temporary lack of consciousness
not permanent Mental Capacity Act 2005 HOL held for incompetent adults can make declaration
for lawfulness – but since Mental Capacity Act 2005: ‘reasonable belief’ decision in best interest will
suffice
J Murphy: ‘there can be no battery unless there is an act by the defendant’
1
INTENTION
Target of intention: e.g. trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment) neither
harm nor unlawfulness needs to be intended
Level of intention: relevant state of mind
Intention specific to each tort each has its own intention requirement
All trespass torts actionable without proof of damage + consent defence for all
Trespass to the Person: Battery, assault + false imprisonment
BATTERY – unlawful touching of claimant
Requires directly and intentionally brings contact with body of claimant, where contact exceeds
what is lawful, battery is actionable without proof of damage, no need intent of harm, nor even
intent act unlawfully necessary intention is bring about physical contact which unlawfulness of
contact creates wrong liability strict as not require fault but based on intention
Intention of battery= physical contact, battery argued not need intent, recklessly/carelessly
Contact must be direct, does not appear to allow claim for ‘nonfeasance’ (failure to act)
Letang v Cooper [1965]: D drove over claimant whilst he was sunbathing, did not see lawyer for a
long time, limitation period for personal injury so sued for battery, COA rejected claim, need to
intentionally run over trespass of person involves intentional contact
Iqbal v Prison Officers [2009]: COA summarised law, trespass of the person needs an intentional act,
an act of negligence will not suffice, tort, if looking at battery claim need act of striking claimant
(intention sufficient), recklessness as to hitting someone can be sufficient, if do not intend to hit
cannot be sued for battery (but can be sued for negligence), case concerned false imprisonment
need awareness of risk of imprisoning, Iqbal was a prisoner not allowed out of cell on a day when
there was a strike, as not enough staff held not successful as did not intend to keep in cell but due
to strike, there was not reckless with awareness of risk + trespass does not need prove of harm
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
Schoolboy prank, D pulled another 13-year old pupils bag, causing claimant to fall over and suffer hip
injuriesheld hostility necessary element of an actionable battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984]: claimant police officer cautioned D prostitute, D walked away, officer took
hold of her arm, D scratched officer’s restraining arm D argued officer committed battery held
battery, no implied power for officer to detain D for a caution, beyond accepted conduct
Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilization) [1990]
Patient had mental age of a child, formed sexual relationship with male patient, would be
undesirable to prevent relationship, patient unable to cope with pregnancy, but she could not
comprehend and validly consent necessity insufficient defence as temporary lack of consciousness
not permanent Mental Capacity Act 2005 HOL held for incompetent adults can make declaration
for lawfulness – but since Mental Capacity Act 2005: ‘reasonable belief’ decision in best interest will
suffice
J Murphy: ‘there can be no battery unless there is an act by the defendant’
1
