Answer for Part C Past Year Question Apr 2010 UiTM

Past Year Question (April 2010)

Part C There are several issues that can be found in the given case. The first issue is whether the defendant Billy can be held liable for trespass to land when he entered plaintiff’s property which is Anna’s House. The second issue is whether the defendant Billy can be held liable for his act on taken plaintiff’s good which Omega watch that is on Anna’s possession under trespass to good. The third issue is whether the defendant Rose can be held liable under detinue for her refusal to return plaintiff’s property which Anna’s watch when Anna demand for the return immediately. The last issue is whether the defendant Rose is liable for her act on pushing the plaintiff, Anna and caused her fell and ankle twisted under battery. In order to prove trespass to land, trespass to goods and detinue, there are three common elements that that need to be fulfilled in order for the plaintiff to succeed in the claim. The first common element that needs to be fulfilled by all trespass is the act of the defendant must be committing intentionally. In case of Letang v Cooper [1964] ALL ER 292, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim for act of defendant who negligently run his car over the plaintiff body while the plaintiff is sunbathing on his piece of grass where the car were park cannot be recovered under the trespass as there is no intention by the defendant, but the claim might be succeed if the trial made under tort of negligence. In applying the Letang’s case to these issue, Billy is intentionally enter Anna’s house when he pretending to be invited guest at the wedding in the Anna’s house and snooping around the house. Billy is also intentionally take Anna’s watch when he put the Omega watch that is on Anna’s possession on his pocket right after he saw it. Rose also shows her intention to keep the watch owned by Anna when she refused to return the watch to Anna after Anna demand for it and got into an argument. Rose also intentionally pushed Anna due to Anna’s act that tried to open the display unit where her watch is located and cause Anna fell and her ankle twisted. Therefore, the first common elements have been fulfilled by the entire defendant. The second common element that needs to be fulfilled is the defendant act must be direct and physical. This means that the injury must be direct rather than consequential. This law can be seen in the case of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation (1956) where the court held that the defendant is not liable as the damage of spilt petroleum was consequential due to the oil carried by the tide onto the shore and not directly from the defendant. Applying this second common element to these issues, it is foreseeable that Billy is doing direct act when he entered Anna’s house without her permission. Billy also on his own will when he doing a direct act by took Anna’s watch and put it in his pocket. Rose also made a direct act when she expressly show that she refused to return the demanded watch owned by Anna and got into argument with Anna. Moreover, Rose by her own will doing a direct act towards Anna when she pushed Anna’s body to stop her from opening the display unit to get her own watch and caused her fell and her ankle twisted. Hence, the second common element is also being fulfilled by the defendants in all issues. The third common element is the act itself is actionable per se. it means that the plaintiff does not have to proof any damage as a result because the act of defendant itself has show a trespass. This law can be seen in case of Gregory v Piper [1829] 9B & C 591 where the court held that defendant is liable because the act of defendant on putting rubbish onto the plaintiff’s wall itself showed an interference. It is actionable per se without the need to proof of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore the act of Billy entering Anna’s house itself when he entered the Anna’s

property without her permission is actionable per se without having Anna to prove damages that suffered by her. The act of Billy took Anna’s watch and keep in his pocket without Anna’s consent is actionable per se without having Anna to prove damages on her property. The act of Rose refuse the demanding from Anna for her watch is actionable per se without Anna has to prove any damage as a result of refusal. The act of Rose pushed Anna to stop her from opening the display unit to get her own watch is actionable per se without Anna to proof any damages or injury due Rose’s act. For that reason, the third common element is also been fulfilled by the defendants in all issues for this case. Having fulfilled the common element, the specific element for the trespass should be continued in order to attain favourable judgment and make a plaintiff to succeed in the claimable issue. The first issue is on trespass to land. Trespass to land is unjustifiable interference with the possession of land. Other element that must be fulfilled is the plaintiff must be in the principle possession of the property. Applying this element to Billy’s issue, Anna is the owner of land and also in the possession of her land when the wedding is held at her house at time Billy is entering her house. Therefore, Anna also fulfilled the element of trespass to land. Having fulfilled all the elements in trespass to land, it can be conclude that Billy is liable for the act of trespassing Anna’s house without her consent. Consequently, Anna may proceed with her claim to the court to seek for her right under tort of trespass to land. The second issue is on trespass to good. Trespass to good is unjustifiable interference with goods that is in possession of one person. Specific element for trespass to good is the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must have been in the possession at the time of the interference complained. In case of Wilson v Lombank (1963) the action defendant for removing the car of the plaintiff which has left on the garage was held as trespass as the car was under the possession of the plaintiff eventhough the plaintiff bought from someone who has no title to sell it. Applying this element to this case, Anna is the owner of the watch and in possession of the watch at the time Billy took the watch without her consent. Therefore, this element is fulfilled. Having fulfilled all the common element and specific element in trespass to good, Billy is liable for the act of taken Anna’s Omega watch when he put it in his pocket without her consent. Therefore, Anna may proceed with her claim to the court to seek for her right under tort of trespass to good. The third issue is on detinue. Detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful detention of goods by the defendant. There are two specific elements in detinue that must be fulfilled in order for the plaintiff to claim for her right in the court. The first element is demand and refusal. There must be a demand from the plaintiff for the return of the goods upon his authority and refusal from the defendant. In case of PKNS v Teo Kai Huat Building Contractor (1982), the court held that the defendant is liable for the damages he caused as the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to bring out the machinery and equipment from the building site for one and a half year which by that time the equipment could no longer be used. Applying this case to Anna’s situation, Rose also refuse to return back the watch owned by Anna eventhough she have demand for the watch immediately after she saw it. They also have an argument due to the demand and refusal. Therefore, the first element for detinue is fulfilled.

The second specific element in detinue is the plaintiff must show that he has both right of possession and right of property. In case of Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali (1960), court held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the lorry eventhough the transaction between defendant and plaintiff is illegal, nevertheless it was fully executed and carried out and the lorry is at that time have fully in possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff owned the right of the lorry. By referring this case to the Anna’s situation, Anna owned both right of possession and right of property because Billy have no right to the watch since he take it without Anna’s consent and Anna is the legal owner to the watch and in the possession of the watch. Second element is fulfilled. Having fulfilled all the common element and specific element in detinue, the defendant, Rose is liable under detinue for refusal to return Anna watch after she demand it to return and the plaintiff Anna is entitled to claim for her watch to be return by the defendant, Rose. The last issue is in battery. Battery is the direct and intentional application of force to another person without that person’s consent. There are two specific elements that must be fulfilled in order for the plaintiff to attain favourable judgment. The first element is the contact must be to the plaintiff’s body or cloth being worn at that time. In case Nash v Sheen (1953), court held that the defendant is liable for battery because the defendant perms the hair of the plaintiff without her consent and caused irritation. Applying this to Anna’s situation, it clearly been stated that the defendant, Rose was pushed Anna’s body to refrain her from opening the display unit where her watch is located and cause Anna fell and her ankle twisted. This fulfilled the first element. The second element act must be performed without consent of the plaintiff. In case of livingstone v Minister of Defence (1984), the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim in battery as he without his consent, was hit by a bullet intended by a soldier to someone else. In case of Anna, she also have no consent that she will be pushed by the Rose when she try to take her own watch from the display unit and fell and got her ankle twisted. The second element is fulfilled. Having fulfilled all the common element and specific element in battery, the defendant, Rose is liable under battery for pushing Anna and caused her fell and gets her ankle twisted. The plaintiff Anna is entitled to claim for the damage and injury caused by Rose. In conclusion, all parties above have been proven their liability and court could asked them to compensate the claimants by way of damages.