1. Intentional Torts
Trespass to
Person Land, Goods or Goods
Person?
What type of What type of
trespass to Land trespass to
person? goods?
False Trespass to Trespass to
Battery Assault Conversion Detinue
Imprisonment Land Goods
&, only if
Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct
touching:
Intentional Intentional Intentional Intentional Intentional
Dispossesses OR
Contact w body Total deprivation of “sets foot up his moves OR destroys
Act or threat Touches
liberty neighbor’s close” OR uses OR
damages
which causes
Without reasonable An item, which P
reasonable fear of Without Permission
means of escape has title to
imminent harm
Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful
Justification Justification Justification Justification Justification
End.

2. Intentional
Torts
=/ hostile
= intention to Sibley v McHale v
Ruddock v
do act which Intentional Mulitinovic Watson
Taylor [2005]
caused harm (1990) (1964)
McNamara v Holmes v
Intention to do Duncan Mather
deliberate
harm (1971) (1875)
Doing
something Morriss v
Weaver v
without reckless Marsden
Ward (1616)
considering [1952]
consequenves
Not taking
enough care to Williams v
prevent negligent Milotin
foreseeable (1957)
harm occurring
Trespass
requires Hutchins v
directness and is Direct Moughan
not merely [1974]
consequential
Action has
Reynolds v
immediate Immediacy if action
Clarke (1725)
consequence
Trespass as a
natural and Scott v
probable Directness of act Shepherd
consequence of (1773)
the D’s act
Lack of an Southport
Scott v Hutchins v
action severely Lack of intervening Gregory v Corp. v Esso
Shepherd Moughan
altering the act Piper (1829) Petrol. Co.
(1773) [1974]
consequences Ltd [1954]
Continue to specific
torts

3. Battery
Intentional
Direct
Not necessary
body to body, Rv
Contact with Pursell v
missiles and Cotesworth
the body Horn (1838)
indirect contact (1704)
are sufficient
Cole v
Not every touch
A touch in anger Turner
is a battery
(1704)
Different views
Wilson v Rixon v Star
on whether
Hostility Pringle City Pty Ltd
hostility is
[1987] [2001]
required
End

4. Assault
Intention to
create an Brady v
Rixon v Star
apprehension of Schatzel; ex
Intentional City Pty Ltd
imminent harm p Brady
[2001]
=/ intent to [1p11]
follow through
Direct
Threats can
constitute
Act or threat
words or acts or
both
Is debated, no In Ireland, there
Australian Barton v is a precedent R v Ireland
Can words be a
authority, NSW Armstrong for silence [1998]
threat?
has re: [1969] constituting an
telephone assault
Focus is on the NB: there must
As exception,
mind of P MacPherson be an apparent
when D knows P
(assumed to be Apprehension v Beath (in the mind of
to be timid and
a reasonable (1975) P) ability of D to
plays on this
person), not on fulfil threat
the mind of D
Imminence/
immediacy is Apprehension must Zanker v Barton v
important à i.e. be of imminent Vartzokas Armstrong
That the threat harmful contact (1988) [1060]
be unavoidable.
An altered test:
is it reasonable
Limits of Rozsa v Police v Tuberville v
for P to
conditional Samuels Greaves Savage
anticipate
threats [1969] [1964] (1669)
imminent force
if he disobeys?
End

5. False
Imprisonment
Intentional
Direct
Threats can
constitute
Act or threat
words or acts or
both
Is debated, no In Ireland, there
Australian Barton v is a precedent R v Ireland
Can words be a
authority, NSW Armstrong for silence [1998]
threat?
has re: [1969] constituting an
telephone assault
Focus is on the NB: there must
As exception,
mind of P MacPherson be an apparent
when D knows P
(assumed to be Apprehension v Beath (in the mind of
to be timid and
a reasonable (1975) P) ability of D to
plays on this
person), not on fulfil threat
the mind of D
Imminence/
immediacy is Apprehension must Zanker v Barton v
important à i.e. be of imminent Vartzokas Armstrong
That the threat harmful contact (1988) [1060]
be unavoidable.
An altered test:
is it reasonable
Limits of Rozsa v Police v Tuberville v
for P to
conditional Samuels Greaves Savage
anticipate
threats [1969] [1964] (1669)
imminent force
if he disobeys?
End