Trespass in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
    • House of Lords
    • 16 May 2002

    Conversion of goods can occur in so many different circumstances that framing a precise definition of universal application is well nigh impossible. First, the defendant's conduct was inconsistent with the rights of the owner (or other person entitled to possession). Third, the conduct was so extensive an encroachment on the rights of the owner as to exclude him from use and possession of the goods.

  • Stadium Capital Holdings (No.2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Company Plc
    • Chancery Division
    • 08 Nov 2011

    In the light of these authorities, it seems to me that, in a trespass case of this kind, "hypothetical negotiation damages" of the kind described in these cases are obviously appropriate. The fact that one party might have refused to agree is irrelevant. In other words, the price which a reasonable person would pay for the right of user, or the sum of money which might reasonably have been demanded as a quid pro quo for permitting the trespass.

  • Doreen Ann Letang (Respondent) Frank Anthony Cooper (Appellant)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 Jun 1964

    If one man intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault and battery, or, if you so please to describe it, in trespass to the person. If he does not inflict injury intentionally, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no cause of action to-day in trespass. His only cause of action is in negligence, and then only on proof of want of reasonable care.

    A cause of action is simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. But it is essential to realise that when, since 1873, the name of a form of action is used to identify a cause of action, it is used as a convenient and succinct description of a particular category of factual situation which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person.

  • Severn Trent Water Ltd v Barnes
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 May 2004

    However, while it will generally be appropriate for the judge in such cases to 'pay attention' to the profits made by the defendants as a result of their trespass (see per Sir Thomas Bingham MR as quoted at paragraph 30 above) he is not obliged to do so and there may well be cases where such an approach is inappropriate, for instance where the profits made are negligible or are impossible to assess.

  • Patel v W. H. Smith (Eziot) Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 Ene 1987

    However, the defendant may put in evidence to seek to establish that he has a right to do what would otherwise be a trespass. Then the court must consider the application of the principles set out in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C.396 in relation to the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction.

  • Addie (Robert) and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Feb 1929

    Towards the trespasser the occupier has no duty to take reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger. An occupier is in such a case liable only where the injury is due to some wilful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the trespasser, or at least some act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT