Trespass To Land Case Study

1626 Words4 Pages

Che v Nicola & Mark
Trespass to land
Direct Interference
The judgement of Blackstone J in Scott v Shepherd which was adopted into Australia tort law through Hutchins v Maughan held that “ where injury is immediate on the act done, there trespass lies; but where it is not immediate… but consequential ” then trespass has not occurred. In Hutchins v Maughan the plaintiff was warned by the defendants about the poisonous baits which he placed on unfenced land. However, the plaintiff ignored his warnings and his dogs died as a result of entering the land. Following the ruling of Blackstone J the court held that there was no trespass as the act was a mere consequence and not immediate. By applying the aforementioned rule to the factual matrix, it is uncontentious that the flooding of the farmlands was a direct result of Mark’s decision to shut down the channel.
The defence may argue that the flooding was caused as a result of natural occurrences and was not direct. However, counsel for the plaintiff will argue that, if in the instance the channel was not closed and the flooding occurred and Mark closed it after the flooding then it would not be direct. The plaintiff must also establish that if in the instance the channel closed and the flooding had not occurred immediately but rather days after and because of a burst pipe then it Mark would not be liable in trespass.
However, the court will most likely conclude that the damage sustained was immediate and direct. Thus Mark is liable under the tort of trespass.
Use and enjoyment of land
Did Mark’s decision to shut down the channel interfere with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land?
Lord DPP in Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Limited established that the owner of the proper...

... middle of paper ...

...abloids. This requirement has been satisfied.
Honest opinion defence
Section 138B of the Civil Wrongs Act 2002 states that;
(1) “It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—
(a) the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of fact; and
(b) the opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(c) the opinion is based on proper material. ”
In this instance, opinions were not expressed for the purpose of public interest. Nor were these opinions based on proper material. Rather Zeke’s main purpose was to assassinate Henrick’s character which was clearly not helping his plea for a republic Australia.
This defence will be rejected by the courts.
Conclusion
If Henrick is to bring a claim in the tort of privacy and defamation he is most likely to succeed.

More about Trespass To Land Case Study

Open Document