Introduction to the tort of trespass - VLC of Tort LOT/LOT 10 Trespass to land.pdf · 2016. 1. 10. · Common-Law Form of Action Trespass is one of the ancient Forms of Action that
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
itself. For example, if a trespasser carefully lights a fire in the stove of a lake cabin and a fault in the
stove causes the cabin to burn down, the trespasser can be held liable for the fire damage.
History Trespass is an ancient set of wrongs which mainly deals with the direct, and usually intentional, invasion of a claimant’s interest either in; his person, his land or his goods. Trespass was one of medieval (Middle Ages from 5th to 15th century) forms of action, the second being “trespass on the case” or simply “case” case covered injury which was consequential to a wrong but the wrong was neither forcible nor direct. The distinction can still be seen in the law of torts today; torts which are actionable per.se, such as trespass to land and trespass to person originate from old forms of trespass, while those torts which require prove of damage such as negligence and nuisance.
The law of trespass today has much of its origin in criminal law where its function is deterrent than compensatory. For example an action will lie in trespass but not in negligence even if the claimant has suffered no damage. This shows its usefulness in protecting civil rights hence much of the law of trespass is the basis of a civil liberties today.
Some cases of trespass can be filed under criminal law for example trespass to the person such as assault and battery. This occurs where a criminal offence has been committed. In such cases the courts have powers under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s.130 to make a compensation order.
Tort Law originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct
directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass
gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the
interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can
be punished as a crime.
Common-Law Form of Action
Trespass is one of the ancient Forms of Action that arose under the Common Law of England as early
as the thirteenth century. It was considered a breach of the king's peace for which the wrongdoer
might be summoned before the king's court to respond in a civil proceeding for the harm caused.
Because the king's courts were primarily interested in land ownership disputes, the more personal
action of trespass developed slowly at first.
Around the middle of the fourteenth century, the clerks of the king's courts began routinely giving out
writs that permitted a plaintiff to begin a trespass action. Before that time criminal remedies for
trespass were more common. The courts were primarily concerned with punishing the trespasser
rather than compensating the landowner. From the beginning a defendant convicted of trespass was
fined; a defendant who could not pay the fine was imprisoned. The fine in this criminal proceeding
developed into an award of damages to the plaintiff. This change marked the beginning of tort action
under the common law.
As trespass developed into a means of compelling the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for
injury to his property interests, it took two forms: an action for trespass on real property and an action
not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays
after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself
in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the
property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of
the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.
In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but
only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser
mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child
can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.
Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the
amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property. For
example, a person could sue birdwatchers who intruded onto his land but would probably receive only
nominal damages. A farmer who discovers several persons cutting down valuable hardwood trees for
firewood could recover a more substantial amount in damages.
Trespassers are responsible for nearly all the consequences of their unlawful entry, including those
that could not have been anticipated or are the result of nothing more wrongful than the trespass
itself. For example, if a trespasser carefully lights a fire in the stove of a lake cabin and a fault in the
stove causes the cabin to burn down, the trespasser can be held liable for the fire damage.
It may be a trespass to tunnel or mine under another person's property, to force water or soil under
the property, or to build a foundation that crosses under the boundary line. Underground
encroachments are usually an exception to the rule that no harm needs to be shown in order to prove
a trespass. Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface
or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.
Potential claimant/ who can sue for trespass to land The claimant should be the current possessor of land at the particular time a wrong of trespass took
place. He may not be the superior owner but he can be an owner through free hold, leasehold, license, or
exclusive possessions. As trespass of land is a wrong against the possession, not ownership, of the land, only the person who
has exclusive possession of the land in question can sue. Thus, possession refers to occupation or
physical control of the land - use of the land without possession is not sufficient; nor is ownership of
the land without possession.
Definition of Trespass to Land
General
Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or
remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.
According to Ratanlal
“It is an unwarrantable entry upon the land of another or any direct or immediate act of interference
Tort of trespass to land can be classified into the following terms:
What is Trespass to Land?
Trespass to land comes under the law of Tort. Basically, the law of tort concerns itself with providing
remedies to people who find themselves hurt/harmed by the conduct of other people. Trespass to
land is one of the oldest actions known to the common law (although it no longer is a crime at common
law), and can be defined as an unauthorised interference with a person’s possession of land.
It is the direct invasion of possession which is actionable, thus, once the invasion has been proved, it
is for the defendant (the person committing the invasion) to justify his actions.
There has to be an intention to interfere with the right of possession, thus involuntary actions are not
actionable. Trespass to land does not require proof of damage for it to be actionable. Thus, the
defendant cannot claim that he entered the land reasonably and/or with due care.
What are the types of Trespass?
The most common form of trespass is entry by the defendant on to the plaintiff’s land. However, there
are other forms of trespass, such as placing objects on the land, or even placing objects that are in
contact with the plaintiff’s property or land. Where someone was lawfully on the land, either by
exercising a right of entry, or because he had permission to be on the land, that person will be
committing trespass if he abuses the right or permission by acting outside the purpose for which he
was granted the right/permission. A trespass will also be committed if he remains on the land after the
right/permission has expired.
Types of trespass to land
Trespass by relation
It involves the immediate right to possess and signifies the lawful right to retain possession when one
has it or one has acquired it i.e. once a person is entitled to immediate possession of land, he is
deemed to have been in possession from the moment that his right to it is accrued.
Plaintiff’s possession of land relates back to the time when he first acquired the right to possess that land and is therefore deemed to have been in possession of it from that time.
He can therefore sue for acts of trespass while he was actually out of possession and it also provides foundation for the claim for damage suffered by a person as a result of having been kept out of possession of his land.
If A owns land which he sells to B passes before B has taken actual possession of the land and in the meantime C commits an act of trespass on the land , B may sue C for the trespass notwithstanding that he had not yet taken possession of that land when the act of trespass was committed. That means B’s title relates back to the time when he first became entitled to take possession i.e. the time he bought the land from A.
Entering upon land
Walking onto land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission has been withdrawn, or
throwing objects onto land are all example of trespass to land.
Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37
While moving his grass, the owner of land accidentally mowed some grass on his neighbour’s land.
Mistaken entry (Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37)
The defendant cut grass from the land which he believed belonged to him, but in fact belonged to the neighbor, the claimant.
The court held that whether the defendant knew the title of facts or not was irrelevant: his act was voluntary and did cause loss that the claimant had suffered.
There is no liability if the entry is involuntary i.e. a person who is carried onto the land of the claimant by a 3rd party is not liable in trespass
Smith v Stone (1647) Defendant was violently pursued into the claimant’s land who sought damages in the action for
trespass to land. It was held that a trespass cannot be committed involuntarily and the action failed. There was trespass by the people who carried him there and not by the defendant.
Negligent entry
League Against Cruel Sports v Scott.
The Ps owned 23 unfenced areas of land. Staghounds used to enter the land in pursuit of deer. The Ps
sued the joint Masters of the Hounds for damages and sought an injunction against further trespasses.
Park J issued an injunction in respect of one area restraining the defendants themselves, their servants
or agents, or mounted followers, from causing or permitting hounds to enter or cross the property.
Damages for six trespasses were awarded.
The judge said: "Where a master of staghounds takes out a pack of hounds and deliberately sets them
in pursuit of a stag or hind knowing that there is a real risk that in the pursuit hounds may enter or
cross prohibited land, the master will be liable for trespass if he intended to cause the hounds to enter
such land or if by his failure to exercise proper control over them he causes them to enter such land."
Trespass to the ground beneath the surface (Trespass to subsoil)
Any intrusion upon the subsoil is just as much trespass as entry upon the surface. The surface and the
subsoil can be possessed by different persons. If A is in possession of the surface and B, the subsoil and
I walk on the land that would result into trespass against A and not against B.
If I dig a hole vertically in the land, that would be trespass against both A and B. If I bore a tunnel from
my land into B’s subsoil, that would be trespass against B only.
Even if the land owner has been deprived of ownership of minerals by statute, intrusions beneath the
surface such as pipelines in order to obtain the minerals still amounts to trespass, though in such a
case the quantum of damages will be very limited.
In Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351, the Ds mined from their land through to the P's land.
This was held to be trespass to the subsoil.
Possession of land
This tort developed to protect a person's possession of land, and so only a person who has exclusive
possession of land may sue.
Thus, a landlord of leased premises does not have exclusive possession, nor does a lodger or a licensee.
However, a tenant or subtenant does.
Trespass by One Entitled to Possession
In nearly all states, a person who forcibly enters onto land is guilty of a crime, even if that person is
entitled to possession of the land. For example, a landlord who personally tries to eject a tenant
creates a potentially explosive situation. To discourage such "self-help," the states provide legal
procedures for the rightful owner to use to recover his land. Many states do not let the illegal occupant
sue the rightful owner in trespass for his forcible entry, but the occupant can sue for Assault and
Battery or damage to her personal property.
Continuing trespass
A trespass is continuing when the offending object remains on the property of the person entitled to
possession. A building or fence that encroaches on a neighbor's property creates a continuing trespass,
as does a tree that has fallen across a boundary line.
Some courts have allowed a series of lawsuits where there is a continuing trespass, but the prevailing
view is that the dispute should be settled in its entirety in one action.
Continuing trespass signifies the rule that continuance of a trespass is a fresh trespass, and an action
may be brought in respect of it i.e. the continuing of a trespass from day to day is considered in law a
separate trespass on each day. This is because as long as the trespasser continues, the plaintiff
continues to suffer and there is a fresh cause of action.
It means that a person who commits a trespass by putting things on the plaintiff’s land and does not
remove them, is liable for a continuing trespass, where a fresh cause of action arises de die diem i.e.
day by day besides the original action.
If the act constituting trespass remains without the trespasser doing anything to avoid it, there is said to be a continuing trespass. It arises for example where a trespasser chooses to remain on a plaintiffs land or fails to remove any matter from that land, which is causing trespass.
A continuing trespass is a failure to remove an object (or the defendant in person) unlawfully placed on
land. It will lead to a new cause of action each day for as long as it lasts.
The remedies can be tailored to the particular kind of harm done. A defendant might have to pay
damages to repair the plaintiff's property or compensate the plaintiff for the diminished value of her
property. Where a structure or object is on the plaintiff's property, the defendant may be ordered to
remove it.
Konskier v Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB 421
This case considered the issue of negligence and trespass and whether or not the failure of a builder to
remove rubbish from a neighbours property which sometime later caused damage to a new tenants
property amounted to an actionable trespass by the tenant even though the tenant was not present
when the initial trespass occurred.
Where there is continuing trespass, the plaintiff can bring a number of actions against the defendant.
This is because as long as the trespasser continues, the plaintiff continues to suffer and there is a fresh
cause of action.
For example, in Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) the defendants erected buttresses to support a
sinking road, necessitating trespass onto the claimants land. The claimant sued and recovered
damages, but the defendant failed to remove the buttresses so the claimant sued again.
Transfer of that land by an injured party does not prevent transferee from suing the defendant for continuing trespass.
There is no trespass if the defendant merely omits to restore land to the same condition (apart from
removing anything which he has put on the land) in which he found it i.e. if he fails to fill up a pit which
he has dug on the neighbours land . He is only liable for the original digging and not for continuing
trespass in allowing the pit to remain unfilled; however, he is liable for negligence if anyone falls into
the pit.
In CLEGG V DEARDEN; a trespasser had broken through a wall mine and after the statute had the
original trespass, water had run through the hole and injured the plaintiff. It was held in an action on
the case that there could be no recovery because leaving a hole there was not a continuing trespass
and that running of the statute had already barred the trespass together with its results.
Trespass by wrongful entry
Is committed where there is physical contact with another person’s property on the land however
slight.
It includes acts of encroaching on the land or walking through it without authority, sitting on the
plaintiffs fence, putting a hand through the plaintiffs window, abuse of right of entry i.e. a person
authorized to enter premises for the purpose of repairing them becomes a trespasser when he picks
and eats fruits on the premises without authority and throwing things on someone‘s land.
WESTRIPP V BALDOCK
Facts: Plaintiff and the defendant occupied adjoining houses included within a building scheme. Restrictions were enforceable by either of them against the other. The material restriction was that at no point should any building be erected as a shop, warehouse or factory or any trade or manufacture be carried out. Defendant was a jobbing builder and placed ladders, planks, sand against the wall of the plaintiff’s house. At the rear of the house, the defendant had erected a shed touching the plaintiff’s garden wall which he used as a store for builders fitting. Plaintiff brought an action alleging a technical trespass, damage by damp through the pointing being injured by these articles and breach of restrictive covenant by erection of a warehouse and carrying out trade.
Held: placing of the ladders and other articles against the wall was a technical trespass which had damaged the pointing and the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of repainting the wall.
Defendant was carrying on a trade within the meaning of the covenant, as the business of a jobbing builder involved the buying and selling of materials and plaintiff was entitled to an injunction.
Trespass by joint owners
Joint owners enjoy their property by sharing it. But when there is a direct and clear infringement of a
distinct right of one joint owner by the other, the action for trespass can be maintained by the latter.
Example: where one of the owners of a joint party wall raises its height with the consent of the other
owner. Such raised portion is also a party wall. Neither party is at liberty to open a window in the
portion so raised, if one of them does so it is a trespass against which injunction ordering to close the
window can be granted.
Trespass by animals
Trespass by a man’s cattle is dealt with in the same manner as if the trespass had been committed by
Held: The Lords (Lord Scarman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman and Lord
Templeman) unanimously held - with Lord Templeman delivering judgment - that an agreement for
exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a lease or tenancy, regardless of what the parties call
it. Lord Temple man memorably stated that "a five pronged implement for manual digging is a fork",
whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it. He also went on to explain the theoretical basis for
tenancies, including periodic tenancies. The case is of much significance in the area of lease law
throughout much of the common law world.
Upon referring to this case, it is important to note that although a landlord is naming the document a
licence, if the above terms are incorporated into the licence, i.e. exclusive possession with a term
certain at a full market rent, calling the document a licence is only a way for the landlord to steer clear
of the laws that govern leases under the Landlord and Tenant act 1954.
If a licensee exceeds their licence, or remains on the land after it has expired or been revoked, the
licensee becomes a trespasser
Hillen v ICI (Alkali) Ltd [1936] AC 65)
Stevedores, who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became
trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of
the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the covered hatch for this purpose; ‘for them for such
a purpose it was out of bounds; they were trespassers’. The stevedores could not complain that the
barge owners should have warned them that the hatch cover was not adequately supported. ‘So far as
he sets foot on so much of the premises as lie outside the invitation or uses them for purposes which
are alien to the invitation he is not an invitee but a trespasser, and his rights must be determined
accordingly.’
Such a person is allowed a reasonable time in which to leave
‘It seems to me that the occupier of any dwelling house gives implied permission to any member of
the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the
door of his house.’
There is also the defence of estoppel by acquiescence, that is, consent which is expressed or implied
from conduct, e.g., inactivity or silence
Where a person has permission to enter land , either expressed or as implied by the property’s owner, then he won’t be held liable for trespass. Any member of the public has an implied license to approach premises with legitimate inquiry, even if that inquiry has nothing to do with the occupier’s interest. In this case, a police officer without a search warrant is in the same position as a member of the public. This defence exists unless the defendant has exceeded the terms of the license.
When the license is just bare (no consideration is offered by the defendant), the license can be revoked at any time. If the defendant takes more than reasonable time, she/he was given to move out, and then he/she is committing a trespass.
A contractual license is revoked only when: 1. There has been an expressed or implied time frame limit in the contract 2. Demand for injunction to prevent breach of contract
Consent
A person or claimant who agrees to a certain action cannot complain or sue.
PETERS V PRINCE OF WALES THEATER LTD[12] The defendant employed a sprinkler system to protect the building from fire. The claimant also
occupied the building and complained when she stock was damaged by water from the sprinklers. It was held that the water supply benefited both the claimant and defendant and therefore there was
no liability.
Act of public Necessity
Entry on the land of another person, without his consent, is justifiable on the ground of public
necessity. A person is not guilty of trespass if he goes onto another's land to protect life or property
during an emergency. For example, a passerby who sees someone pointing a gun at another person
may cross onto the property and subdue the person with the gun. Someone at the scene of a traffic
accident may go onto private property to pull a victim from one of the vehicles.
Necessity is a defence to show that it was necessary for the defendant to enter the claimants land Trespass may not arise where there is actual/perceived danger in relation to which steps are taken. For example, in case of fire, one may get into another person’s land to prevent further harm In RIGBY V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Facts: A young man broke into a gun shop and armed himself; the police fired a canister of CS gas into
the shop so as to smoke out the young man. Unfortunately, the shop caught fire and the shop keeper sued for damages.
Held: It was held that the police could rely on the defence of necessity because the boy was a clear threat to the public and since the police had not contributed to that problem, they were not liable. It was held that necessity was a defence provided that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in contributing to the state of necessity, thus the action for trespass failed.
Prescription
In an action for trespass, a defendant may plead that he was justified by reason of prescription, as by
showing a right of common, or right of way over the land.
Special property and easement
A guarantee of an easement may enter upon the servient (Subordinate) tenement (apartment house)
in order to do necessary repairs, and is a good defense to an action for trespass. A landlord does not
have the right to enter a tenant's apartment whenever the landlord wants. However, the landlord
usually has the right to enter to make repairs. The landlord must arrange a reasonable time for the
repairs, but the tenant's consent to this arrangement is either contained in the lease or is implied from
the landlord's assumption of responsibility for making repairs inside the apartment.
Recaption
If a person takes away the goods of another upon his on land, he gives to the owner of them an
employed license to enter for the purpose of recaption. Similarly if the goods are on the land of
another in the pursuance of a felonious (Involving, being or having the nature of a crime) act of a third
person, the entry will be justifiable.
Re-entry on land
An owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed may re-enter on his land, and if he does so, he cannot
be sued for trespass by the person who has been wrongfully there.
If a person has actual possession of goods, chattels or animals and another wrongfully attempts to take
the same from him, he is justified in using such force as is necessary for the purpose of defending his
own possession.
Abetment of nuisance
An occupier of land may, with prior notice enter upon an others adjoining land for the purpose of
removing the nuisance upon it.
Authority of law
Acts which would otherwise be trespass are not so when justification is provided for by the law Where defendant is legally authorized to enter onto the claimant’s land by statutory authority, he
can’t be liable for trespass on land e.g. the police have powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter premises and search them. . However, abuse of the legal authority is punishable. When one had initial authority, then later did something unlawful, it results into a doctrine known as ab initio
In ELIAS V PASMORE: The police had lawfully entered the plaintiff’s residence to arrest a man. The
police took some documents, some of which were taken unlawfully. It was held that the original entry
was not trespass, but there was trespass to goods when they took the documents.
Execution of legal process
Entry under legal process is justifiable. Person who execute legal process like a warrant of arrest,
attachment or search or protected by the warrants from liability in respect of the acts authorized by it.
What Is The Difference Between Nuisance And Trespass To Land?
The major difference between nuisance and a trespass to land is the interest being interfered with. In
nuisance, a person is interfering with a current possessor's use and enjoyment of the property.
Whereas, in trespass to land, the person is interfering with the exclusive possession and physical
condition of the land.
Duties towards trespassers
A homeowner is limited in what he can do to protect his family and property from trespassers. The
homeowner cannot shoot children who keep cutting across the lawn or set traps or deadly spring-
operated guns to kill anyone who trespasses on the property.
Deadly Force in any manner is generally not justifiable except in Self-Defense while preventing a
violent felony (A serious crime such as murder). Mere trespass is not a felony.
The owner or person in possession of real property can be held liable if guests are injured on the
property because of the owner's Negligence.
A property owner generally does not have the same duty to make the premises safe for a trespasser,
however. A trespasser assumes the risk of being injured by an unguarded excavation, a fence
accidentally electrified by a falling wire, or a broken stair. The occupant of real property has a duty
only to refrain from intentionally injuring a trespasser on the premises.
These general rules have several exceptions, however. A property owner who knows that people
frequently trespass at a particular place on his land must act affirmatively to keep them out or exercise
The person who is entitled to possession may request a trespasser to leave and if the trespasser
refuses, may remove him from the land, using no more force than is reasonably necessary. However, if
the force used in turning out a trespasser is excessive the person who used such force himself commits
a trespass upon the person of the person removed.
RE-ENTRY
The person entitled to possession can enter or re-enter the premises. He must do so in a peaceful manner subject to the common law rights to eject a trespasser.
SELF HELP
The party in possession may use reasonable force to resist wrongful entry by trespasser e.g. by erecting
fences and putting on barbed wire fences. In cases of security dogs, he should have control over it and
notify people about the dog in every entrance.
ORDER OF POSSESSION OF LAND /DECLARATION
Was formerly called ejectment .It’s an action by which the possessor of land seeks a court order to
recover it? It’s usually achieved by the claimant proving his /her title to land; he/she can now take
action against the squatters (Someone who settles on land without right or title).
MESNE PROFITS
This is usually an addition to the action for recovery of possession of land. They are consequential
damages given to the claimant for the time he/she has been from that land. It aims at recovering the
last use of property. An action lies for the damage which the claimant has suffered through being out
of possession of land; this includes profits taken by the defendant during his occupation and damages
for deterioration and the reasonable cost of getting possession e.g. In the case of
INVERUGIE INVESTMENTS LTD V HACKETT
The Privy Council was called upon to calculate mesne profits in unusual circumstance. The claimant had
been unlawfully kept out of his property in the Bahamas (Island country in the Atlantic to the east of
Florida and Cuba; a popular winter resort) for a period of 15 and half years. He was entitled to a
reasonable rental value for the period based on the published rates at which the tour operators made
,”whole sale arrangements to use holiday accommodation” It was held that the plaintiff could recover
a reasonable rent for every apartment in the hotel block the defendant had built. Though the
defendant objected that the flats had not been fully occupied, Lord Lloyd held that it was not a matter
of actual loss and hence the calculation of the total sum.
DISTRESS DAMAGE FEASANT
Is where a chattel (any tangible movable property (furniture or domestic animals or a car etc.)) is
unlawfully on the claimants land and has caused actual damage, then the claimant may retain the
chattel until the damage has been paid for. A football kicked through the window may be retained until
Teacher-led information on the historical context of the law and what constitutes trespass.
Learners read the summary in the website opposite. Make a mind map to cover the key elements the
article discusses.
Learners produce chart based on key cases to illustrate classes of claimants and defendants.
Liability tick list – learners make a chart to show the steps a lawyer would work through when
constructing liability. Apply this to key cases and then learners make their own examples.
Learners work in pairs to research and justify possible defences and their application to a scenario.
Revision task – learners summarise the important elements of the tort.
Research – learners look at the website opposite and summarise the law explained there.
Debate – This house believes that an Englishman’s house (and garden) is his castle.
Discussion – learners read the article in the website opposite. Why is it important for the law on
trespass to land to work efficiently and fairly?
Exam questions – both essay and hypothetical problem/case study questions can help learners to
develop their skills.
Questions from Past papers
Q1. Compare and contrast the torts of trespass to land and private nuisance. [October/November 2004]
Q2. ‘To enter another’s land without permission is never justifiable and is always actionable per se.’ critically assess this statement. [October/November 2006]
Q3. Compare and contrast the torts of private nuisance and trespass to land. [October/November 2008]
Q4. Entry to another’s land without permission is never justifiable and is always actionable per se. Discuss the above view of the tort of trespass to land. [May/June 2011]
Q5. Unauthorised entry to another’s land without permission is never justifiable and is actionable per se. Critically assess the extent to which you agree with this view of the tort of trespass to land. [October/November 2013]
Q6. The tort of trespass to land is direct, forcible and consequently actionable per se. critically evaluate the legal principles associated with the tort and assess the truth of this statement. [May/June 2014]