Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AMIRAH BT SALMAN
BEQ090003
OUTLINE - TRESPASS
INTRODUCTION
TRESSPASS TO LAND
Elements of trespass
Mental state of defendant: Basely V. Clarkson
Interference: Gregory V. Piper
POSSESSION
TRESPASS TO RELATION
INTERFERENCE
OUTLINE - TRESPASS
TRESPASS TO HIGHWAY
DPP V. Jones
TRESPASS TO SUBSOIL
TRESPASS TO AIRSPACE
Pickering V. Rudd
CONTINUING TRESPASS
Konskier V. Goodman
TRESPASS AB INITIO
Cinnamond V. British Airport Authority
OUTLINE – NEGLIGENCE (Duty of Care)
INTRODUCTION
Negligence
Duty of Care
NEIGHBOURHOOD TEST
NEIGHBOURHOOD PRINCIPLE
Donoghue V. Stevenson
Home Office V. Dorsett Yacht
Peabody Donation V. Lindsay Parkinson
Sathu V. Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co. Ltd
Sivakumaran V. Yu Pan
REVISED TEST
Anns V. Merton London BC
CURRENT TEST
Caparo Ind. V. Dickman
OUTLINE – NEGLIGENCE (Breach of Duty)
highway.
HELD: By majority of HOL that it is not a
through negligence.
• But it’s not a trespass if defendant merely
omit to restore the same condition.
– Example: Defendant fail to fill pit. He’s liable
for trespass for digging, but not liable for
continuing trespass in allowing it to be
there. But he’s liable for negligence if
TRESPASS AB INITIO
• You become a trespasser ab initio if you
abuse your authority as justified by law.
• Your act is unlawful from the very beginning.
• Doctrine only applies if the authority is of
the law and if the act is positive, not a
mere omission.
CASE: CINNAMOND V. BRITISH AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
FACT: 6 taxi drivers were prosecuted by the
plaintiff?
HELD: Plaintiff is a neighbour to defendant.
owner of yacht?
HELD: H/O was liable because they
DOC?
HELD: Defendant does not owe DOC to
DOC to plaintiff?
HELD: Defendant doesn’t owe DOC to
on children.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant should
negligent?
HELD: Doctor not guilty of negligence