Trespass to the person

Tort
Battery:
Amutha Valli

Assault:
Amutha Valli

False
imprisonment:
Amutha Valli

Elements
Direct
Intentional
Application of force
Without the others consent,
legal justification or voluntary
assumption of risk
Touching need not be hostile
need not be an intention to
harm
The apprehension of battery
Intentionally
Caused C to think that D was
going to cause injury
And if completed, would be
battery
Constraining someone elses
freedom of movement
Without lawful authority or
consent

Issues
Drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable
contact
Consent: what did the claimant consent to? Haircut,
or close cut?
Medical treatment without consent is battery (Re F)

Defences
Consent
Necessity
Self-defence
Inevitable
accident
Lawful arrest
Voluntary
assumption of risk

Words alone may be enough for assault: R v Ireland

Words can disprove assault: Tuberville v Savage
Can be threatening behaviour: Read v Coker
Can be a prevented battery: Stephens v Myers
Fear to another cannot be assault

Consent
Necessity
Self-defence
Voluntary
assumption of risk

Requires total bodily restraint: Bird v Jones

No action possible if a means of escape exists: Wright
v Wilson
Liability possible where C was unaware of the
restraint: Meering v Graham White Aviation
No liability merely because claimant must pay to
escape accepted contractual terms: Robinson v
Balmain Ferry
No liability where employer has legitimate
expectation that employee will complete Shift: Herd v
Weardale Steel

Consent
Lawful arrest

E.g. Wrongful detention by a department store detective

would be false imprisonment, and a bodily search would be
battery
1

Trespass to the person

Harassment:
POHA

Acts or omissions that cause

harassment, alarm or distress, e.g.:
stalking, loitering, keeping someone
under surveillance
Intentional infliction of HAD: s
3
Infliction of HAD: s 4
Unlawful stalking: s 7

How serious does the alarm or distress have to be?

Common-sense meaning: Chee Siok Chin
Persistent or sustained conduct which D knows or
ought reasonably to know to cause worry, emotional
distress or annoyance: Malcolmson
Need not rise to the level of recognised psychiatric
harm in negligence

Accused person proves

that his conduct was
reasonable

Can emotional distress be actionable by a 3P who witnesses

an intentional act toward someone else?
Likely yes. See, e.g., s 3: thereby causing that other
person or any other person harassment, alarm or
distress, s 4: which is heard, seen or otherwise
perceived by any person likely to be caused
harassment, alarm or distress.
Is the relationship to the injured party important? Does C
have to be / feel at risk?
Likely no to both. See Act provisions.
Compare emotional damage to a 3P in negligence
Mcloughlin factors, affirmed in Ngiam Kong Seng.
Class of persons circumstantial, proximity in time
and space physical, means by which shock was
caused causal
More stringent test in negligence
Defendants own actions towards himself?
Likely not actionable. Interference with personal
liberty. Analogise with Greatorex v Greatorex