Tort Law Analysis: Trespass to Land, Assault, Battery, and Defamation

This assignment presents a detailed analysis of several tort law scenarios. It begins with Irene's property disputes involving a neighbor's tree blocking sunlight and the city council's shrubs damaging her driveway, discussing trespass and duty of care. The second scenario involves Wally's driveway construction on Martinsson's land, focusing on trespass to land. The third case examines Marie's interaction with Henning, considering assault, battery, and false imprisonment claims. Finally, the assignment analyzes Dough's defamation claim against Henning for providing a negative reference. Each scenario is assessed under relevant tort law principles, including potential defenses and remedies, highlighting the complexities of tort litigation. Desklib is a platform where students can find similar solved assignments.

Tort Law

Table of Contents
Answer 1....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 2....................................................................................................................................5
Answer 3....................................................................................................................................6
Answer 4....................................................................................................................................8

Answer 1
Facts of Case: 1
Irene has been living in the Blue Mountains for many years happily, with beautiful scenic
views from the windows of her home. Now, she is facing two problems because of trees and
shrubs in her neighbourhood.
a) McDuff owns the neighbouring property on the northern side of Irene’s house. He has a
flowering gum tree on his property which is now around 40 m in height. Though, the tree is
beautiful, it blocks the light and winter sun due to which, her home chills and darkens.
The tort is considered as a legal wrong committed by the tortfeasor against someone, for
which, the usual remedy is the award of damages.1 The tort law protects fundamental
freedoms which include personal liberty as well as fundamental rights which include rights of
property. It also provides protection from interventions by others.2
In this case, it is the ‘established duty of care’ of McDuff that the flowering gum tree on his
property should not block the light of neighbour’s house. The ‘duty of care’ in this context
refers to take responsible care to avoid injury to the person whom it can be reasonably
predicted, might get injured by the act or omission.3 However, there is no such problem for
Irene to bring the case to the court because gum trees usually take extensive heights and the
one on her neighbour’s property is already around 40 m in height. With mutual discussion,
she can resolve the problem i.e. by cutting the lower branches of the tree, sufficient light and
warmth of winter sun can be made available to her house. Additionally, the existence of such
1 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018). Authorising what would otherwise be a Tort. Retrieved from
Alrc.gov.au: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-sue-tort
2 Law Council of Australia. (2017). Tort Law Reform. Retrieved from Lawcouncil.asn.au:
https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/policy-agenda/access-to-justice/tort-law-reform
3 State of New South Wales. (2009). Duty of care. Retrieved from Tafensw.edu.au:
https://sielearning.tafensw.edu.au/MCS/CHCAOD402A/chcaod402a_csw/knowledge/duty_of_care/
duty_of_care.htm

a huge tree can cause serious damages also as rubber trees keep on shredding their branches,
so immediate action should be taken to avoid such accident in future.
b) Second issue is that, roots from a huge bunch of native shrubs, growing on the property of
Blue Mountains City Council, have trespassed on her land due to which, her cemented
driveway has been lifted and cracked.
According to Tort Law, trespassing to the land provides protection against unauthorized
interference with the intrusions in the property. The tort is considered as actionable with the
occurrence of interference. There is no need for the plaintiff to establish any standard form of
damage which includes personal injury, property damage or economic loss for the tort to
apply in such matters.4
In this case, due to the roots of the shrub, the cemented driveway being used by Irene was
lifted and cracked. It caused problem to her physically as the pathway has been cracked and
she would have to get it repaired also. However, it would not be possible until the shrubs are
dug out and removed from the place otherwise; the roots will grow more towards her house
and would cause more loss to her.
There is a provision of substantial damages that can be awarded to compensate the plaintiff
for the wrong done by the tortfeasor.5 Irene can claim for ‘compensatory damages’ because
the damage occurred due to trespass and the trespasser is held liable for any kind of loss
caused to the land in question.
So, Irene can claim for damages as well as can demand for an order by the court for the
shrubs to be dug out and removed from the neighbour’s place otherwise the roots would keep
on damaging the property. So, Irene can sue the property owner in this case.
4 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018). Immunity from Civil Liability. Retrieved from alrc.gov.au:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/what-tort
5 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018). Overview of current law. Retrieved from Alrc.gov.au:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/3-overview-current-law/existing-common-law-causes-action

Answer 2
Facts of Case: 2
Wally and Martinsson own adjacent residential land in Western Sydney. Wally constructed a
substantial concrete driveway during renovation work in his property. According to
Martinsson, some part of the driveway is constructed on his land because of which he is not
happy and wants Wally to remove that part of the driveway that trespasses on the land of the
Martinsson.
The act done by Wally comes under Tort as it can be considered as ‘Trespass to land’ which
refers to any kind of direct or unauthorized intrusion, either intentionally or due to
negligence, with the possession of land of another person. It is an actionable interference with
the land and defendant is at fault in this case because Wally had trespassed on the property of
Martinsson and constructed some part of the driveway on his part as well whether
intentionally or negligently but, he interfered with his land or property without any authority
or permission.
As Wally has committed the tort of trespass of land whether intentionally or negligently,
Martinsson can sue him in the court for this matter because Wally had no authority to
construct driveway or to extend the driveway up to his property.
In this case, however, if the matter will go to the court, Martinsson will be awarded with the
damages considering the nature of interest of the plaintiff i.e. himself. There is a provision of
‘Nominal damages’ to be awarded for the trespass to land wherein, the trespass with the
property has proved but no actual damage has caused to the property because of the action of
the defendant.6 However, the court might order the payment of a reasonable amount if it has
6 StuDocu. (2018). Trespass to Land. Retrieved from Studocu.com:
https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/queensland-university-of-technology/torts-law/summaries/chapter-4-
trespass-to-land/1428469/view

been proved that there was some kind of benefit to be obtained by the defendant due to such
interference with the land.
So, initially Martinsson should discuss the matter with Wally to remove the part of driveway
that trespasses on his land but if he does not agree, Martinsson has the right to sue him in the
court for unauthorized trespass on his property.
Answer 3
Facts of Case: 3
Henning is a partner in a Sydney conveyance firm. One day, he saw argument between Doug,
an employee conveyance in the firm and Marie, a client in the reception area. Marie claimed
Doug of carelessly handling her purchase and due to which she was at financial risk. She
demanded her purchase file so that she could engage another firm for the purchase matter.
Doug was laughing due to which she got angry and grabbed the file from his hands in
agitation. Henning introduce himself to Marie and asked her to come with him to the
boardroom. She denied initially but when he gently put his hand on Marie’s arms and asked
her to calm down, she went with him to the boardroom. When she refused to return the file to
Henning, he quickly went out of the room and locked the door and called police.
a) Marie wants to sue Henning under assault, battery and false imprisonment. In order to
achieve success in her legal action, she must prove them as tortuous act done by Henning.
Under Tort Law, civil law suit can be filed by the injured person to get compensated for the
wrongful act done by the offending party. Assault, Battery and False Imprisonment exists
under the category of intentional torts which requires intention of the wrongdoer to cause
injury to the plaintiff. These three torts emerging from the concept of ‘trespass to a person’

are considered as actionable per se, which means, that there is no requirement to prove the
damage but, if such an act result in injury, damages can be recovered for it as well.
Assault refers to any direct or intentional threat made by the wrongdoer due to which plaintiff
reasonably apprehend certain kind of impending unwanted contact physically either by
defendant or a person or thing under the control of the plaintiff. The elements of assault are;
 Direct threat by the defendant through words, conditional threats or intention
 Causes plaintiff to apprehend reasonableness, and should include means to
carry out threat
 Imminent contact
Battery occurs when direct and intentional physical interference is done by defendant without
lawful jurisdiction. It requires;
 Direct and intentional act
 Physical interference by touching or without touching
 Without lawful jurisdiction or without the consent of plaintiff
False Imprisonment deprives the plaintiff of their liberty by the direct action of the defendant
without lawful justification.7
Marie can sue Henning under battery and false imprisonment because it is evident that he
touched her arms without her consent and took her to the board room. Additionally, he locked
her up in the room and deprived her from her liberty to move out of the room. She can claim
for general damages, for emotional distress and for serious invasions of her privacy.
However, Henning can take the defence of ‘Consent’ against the allegation of Assault but, he
will have to prove it, against which, Marie must have to show the absence of effective
consent both actually as well as freely.8
7 Wirth, L. (2016). What is the tort of interference with contractual relations? Retrieved from
lionelwirth.com.au: https://www.lionelwirth.com.au/single-post/2016/1/8/What-is-the-tort-of-interference-with-
contractual-relations
8 Mitchell, R. J. (1976). Liability in tort for causing economic loss by the use of unlawful means and its
application to australian industrial disputes. The Adelaide law review, 428-435.

Marie might be held liable in tort because she was in a contract with the Conveyancing firm
and Dough was an employee conveyancer who was handling her purchase matter. However,
he put her at financial risk, but it was the contractual breach done by him, for which she
should have sued him or the firm.9 But she started shouting and grabbed the purchase file in
agitation due to which she might be held liable for the tort. She should have approached the
process legally so that she could have dealt the matter in a legal manner. In addition, she
should have discussed the matter with seniors of the firm and even if she wanted to terminate
the contract with firm, she should have proceeded legally.
Answer 4
Facts of Case: 4
Dough left the firm and started looking for new job. He applied for the job at Sydney Legal
and gave the name of Henning as referee. When a partner of the new firm called Henning to
ask him about Dough, he shared his opinion that Dough lacked communication skills and he
was relieved that Dough left the firm. Due to this reason, Sydney Legal did not hire Dough.
Dough now wants to take legal action against Henning for defaming his image.
In Australia, defamation law protects all the citizens from false statements against them in
public.10 The image of a person could be defamed if something false is stated about them to
defame their reputation publicly. In order to prove defamation, there are some legal and
factual requirements;
 Communicated or published to third party
9 Television Education Network. (2018). Rebirth of a Tort - Unlawful Interference with Trade or Business.
Retrieved from tved.net.au: http://www.tved.net.au/index.cfm?
SimpleDisplay=PaperDisplay.cfm&PaperDisplay=http://www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/
March_1999,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_Rebirth_of_a_Tort___Unlawful_Interference_with_Trade_or_Bus
iness.html
10 Legalvision. (2018). How Do You Sue Someone for Defamation? Retrieved from legalvision.com.au:
https://legalvision.com.au/how-do-you-sue-someone-for-defamation/

 Information must be insulting
 Information must be regarding plaintiff
 No lawful reason for publishing the information.
Henning should have to take defence to defamation which include;
 The defendant should prove that the defamatory information was considerably true
 Contextual truth which is generally the truth defence but can only be applied to the
accusations
 Some material is protected by law such as to provide evidence in court or tribunal or
publishing to a limited group of people who have interest in the matter
 To prove that the defamation was insignificant
So, if Henning is charged with defamation case by Dough, he can take the defence of
contextual truth and the disclosure of truth to the firm i.e. to limited group.11 He will have to
prove in the court that he had not disclosed information about Dough to anybody else instead
the new firm and it was his legal duty to inform the firm that considered him as referee for
Dough.12 He should prove that what he said was all true in his opinion and he wanted to
clarify it to the firm before they hire Dough so that in future, if Dough would have behaved
badly with clients, he should not be held liable for the same. So, if defamation case is filed
against him, he can raise all these aspects in the court to be truthful on his behalf before the
law as well as for the new firm.
11 Slater and Gordon. (2018). Defamation. Retrieved from Slatergordon.com.au:
https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation
12 David Ingram & Peter Henshall Estate. (2008). Defamation in Australia. Retrieved from Thenewsmanual.net:
https://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html