Law as it applies to the tort of trespass to land

at
Categories
Tags

 

Discuss the potential liability of Rupert and Jenny in respect of the law as it applies to the tort of trespass to land and the entire altercation with Chris. You should also consider any defences that may be available to Rupert and Jenny.PART B: Discuss the potential remedies that may be available to Chris.The scenario:Chris is the owner of his residential property (address: 10 Donwell Avenue, Washington, United Kingdom, NE39 1EB). In July 2023, Chris had an altercation with his next-door neighbours, Rupert and Jenny (address: 11 Donwell Avenue, Washington, United Kingdom, NE39 1EB).The altercation occurred when Rupert accused Chris of parking in Ruperts parking space on the road outside of 11 Donwell Avenue. When Chris explained that he would not move his car because he had done nothing wrong, the situation quickly escalated.Rupert, Jenny and Chris exchanged words on the pavement outside of 10 Donwell Avenue for around three minutes. During this time, Rupert was repeatedly shouting that Chris needed to move his car and that if he did not move it, something bad might happen. Rupert was pointing at Chris and at one point raised a clenched fist in his direction. Chris told Rupert to go away and to leave [him] alone. Jenny shouted, just move the car and we wont take the matter further. Chris explained that he would not discuss the matter with [them] any more, and walked towards his property.Jenny remained on the pavement, but Rupert followed Chris into the front garden attached to 10 Donwell Avenue and continued arguing with him about the car. This argument continued for around two minutes. Chris repeatedly told Rupert to go home, to get off his property and to stay away. Rupert eventually walked out of the garden and picked up a stone from the pavement. He threw the stone in Chris direction. The stone did not hit Chris, but it did hit his front door before landing in a flower bed. The stone did not damage the property in any way.At this point, Chris shouted that he was going to phone the police immediately. Upon hearing this, Rupert and Jenny left the scene, entered their property, and Chris called the police to inform them of the altercation. GuidelinesYour submission should be 1000 words in length (+/- 10%). This is a word limit, not a word guide. OSCOLA footnotes are included in the word count.Please make sure that you correctly cite and reference all secondary sources you use and include a bibliography. The bibliography will not be included in your final word count. Your table of cases and table of statutes (which should pre-face the assessment) will not be included in your final word count.GradingThis activity will be graded, and you will receive feedback on it.

Sample Solution

Potential Liability of Rupert and Jenny

Trespass to Land

Chris, as the owner of the property at 10 Donwell Avenue, has the right to exclusive possession of his land. Trespass to land is the unlawful entry onto another’s property without permission or lawful justification.

Rupert’s Actions:

  • Entering Chris’s front garden without permission: Following Chris onto his property after being told to leave constitutes a trespass.
  • Throwing a stone onto Chris’s property: Throwing the stone further strengthens the case for trespass, as it demonstrates an intentional act onto Chris’s land.

Jenny’s Actions:

  • Remaining on the pavement: Arguably, Jenny did not trespass as she remained on the public pavement outside Chris’s property.

Defences for Rupert and Jenny

  • License: Rupert and Jenny may claim an implied license to be on the pavement outside Chris’s property. Public sidewalks are generally considered implied licenses for pedestrians.
  • De minimis: In the case of Jenny remaining on the pavement, the court might consider the act a trivial trespass (de minimis) and not award any damages.

These defenses are unlikely to succeed for Rupert’s actions within the garden.

Assault

An assault is the act of creating an apprehension of imminent battery. Words alone cannot constitute assault; however, Rupert’s actions may be considered assault.

  • Raising a clenched fist and shouting threats: These actions, coupled with the close proximity to Chris, could be interpreted as creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent battery.

Public Order Offence

Rupert’s behavior, particularly the shouting and threats, might also constitute a public order offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This offense is committed if a person’s words or behavior are likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to others.

Potential Remedies for Chris

Injunction:

Chris could seek an injunction to prevent future trespass and harassment from Rupert and Jenny. An injunction would be a court order prohibiting them from entering his property or engaging in threatening behavior.

Damages:

Chris could claim nominal damages for the trespass to his land and the assault. As the stone did not cause any damage, he cannot claim for property damage.

Compensation:

If Chris incurred any expenses due to the incident, such as calling the police, he could claim compensation for those costs.

Conclusion

Based on the scenario, Rupert is most likely liable for trespass to land and potentially assault. Jenny’s actions are less clear-cut, and a court might consider them a de minimis trespass. Chris has the potential to seek an injunction and claim nominal damages against both Rupert and Jenny.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer