which has caused harm to Angie Mohan

Running head: TORT LAW
0
TORT LAW
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1
TORT LAW
Part A
Issue
Issues involved in this scenario whether there is a trespass to the land or trespass to
person or private nuisance on the part of Julia Jack, which has caused harm to Angie Mohan.
Statement of facts
Angie Mohan has lived in a house where Julia Jack has lived next door to him. Julia has
thrown parties every weekend where many people have come for drinking and have played
horrific loud music till late at night. For the parking of cars of those guests, Mohan can not be
able to out her car from her own place. She has complained to Julia for not doing such
disturbance. However, last Saturday, it was awful that she has requested to stop music, but after
some arguments, Julia has thrown glass to her, and she has got injured.
Authorities or Rules
The laws can be stated against Julia in regards to trespass to the person, private nuisance
and trespass to the land of Mohan. The term ‘trespass to person’ has meant that any direct, as
well as an intended interference of a body or liberty of a person.1 In the law of tort, there are
three types of “trespass to a person”, such as a battery, assault and false imprisonment. In these
three types of “trespass to person”, there should be a common element that such wrongful act has
been committed through any ‘direct means’. The term ‘assault’ means a threat or attempt of
doing a corporeal injury of an individual, which has been coupled with such intention of doing
such activities and an appearance of existent liability.2 In such case of Rixon vs Star City Casino
2001, it has held that the conduct of a person should be accompanied with the intention of
1 Stickley, Amanda P. "The issue of consent: For the plaintiff or defendant to prove in trespass to
person?." (2015) Australian Civil Liability 12.5 :90-92.
2 Gross, Katie P. "They Trespass Her Body Like They Trespass This Land: Civil Criminal
Jurisdictional Issues Involving Assaults on Tribal Lands by Non-Indians." (2019) Hastings Race
& Poverty LJ 16 :91.

2
TORT LAW
creating such apprehension to threaten any physical conduct may constitute assault.3 In such case
law Barton vs Armstrong 1973, it has decided that there should be a significant or positive act
done by such defendant to the victim.4 In the judgment of Dunwoodie vs Teachers Mutual Bank
Ltd 2014, it has arisen that to constitute an assault to the plaintiff there should be a reasonable
apprehension of physical contact immediately.5 The term ‘battery’ is also one type of trespass to
a person where the defendant has physically connected the body of the plaintiff. However, it also
constitutes a battery where the defendant has touched an object, which is intimately connected
with a person. In Common Law, ‘trespass to land’ has been come under tort, as well as a crime
when a person has entered a land of the other person without the permission of the landlord. In
the case of Douglas vs Hello Ltd 2005, it has decided that the person has to show the title over
such property if he wants to sue the defendant.6 In the given scenario, which has been stated by
the plaintiff, it has missed that whether there is a title over the driveway of Mohan or not. The
term nuisance means to disturb a person. It has been derivate from ‘nurie’, a French word, which
means to annoy or to hurt.7 Private nuisance has occurred when a person unreasonably and
substantially interferes or disturbs to the other person’s reasonable or ordinary use of his land,
which they have occupied or owned. In the case of Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd vs Tivoli
Freeholders 1969, it has decided that if someone has interfered the owner or occupier’s land
unreasonably then, he has occurred private nuisance.8 Such interference of the person to occur
the private nuisance may also be affected without the direct entrance of into the land of the
affected person. In the given scenario, the decision of the case of Vincent vs Peacock 1973 will
3 Rixon v Star City Casino (2001) 53 NSWLR 98
4 Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27
5 Dunwoodie v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd [2014] NSWCA 24, Court of Appeal (NSW,
Australia).
6 Douglas v Hello Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (18 May 2005)
7 Lunney, Mark. "Intentional interference with the person." The Law of Tort. (LexisNexis
Butterworths, 2015).
8 Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd v Tivoli Freeholders [1969] VR 62

3
TORT LAW
apply here as a nuisance of a person can be occurred following some environmental issues.9
Noise can be regarded as a private nuisance, which has been decided in the case mentioned
above. In the case of Oldham vs Lawson 1976, Harris J has decided that to constitute a private
nuisance the plaintiff should show that the interference of the defendant should be frequent, and
it should be in extension.10 To constitute a private nuisance, the wrongful act has been done by a
person and the decision of the case of Walter vs Selfe 1851, will apply here.11 The court has
considered it in the above case that such interference of a person should be at the level, which
would reasonably interfere with such regular and ordinary physical comfort, and relaxation of an
individual. In the case of Sturges vs Bridgman 1879, the court of law has observed that such
interference of the defendant must be generally expected on such land of the plaintiff in a
specific area, which is occupied by the plaintiff.12 However, the use of such land where the
nuisance has occurred can not be regarded as a nuisance, if some problems or inconvenience has
caused to any neighbour. The argument, as mentioned above, has decided in the case of Clarey
vs The Principal and Council of the Women’s College 1953.13
Application
In the given scenario, Julia is a neighbour of Mohan and make nuisance several times to
Mohan. The above actions will be applied here to discuss regarding the responsibilities and
liabilities of Julia in accordance with private nuisance, trespass to the person, as well as
properties to Mohan.
9 Vincent v Peacock [1973] 1 NSWLR 466.
10 Oldham v Lawson (No 1) [1976] VR 654 at 655 per Harris J
11 Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315 per Knight-Brice VC.
12 Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852 at 865, CA
13 Clarey v The Principal and Council of the Women’s College (1953) 90 CLR 170.

4
TORT LAW
Applying the case of Rixon vs Star City Casino 200114 in this given statement of Mohan,
Julia has an intention to create an apprehension to threat such physical conduct; she also has
threatened Mohan to go out from her home. However, she has been creating a disturbance to
Mohan; she has threatened her. Therefore, Julia has created an assault on Mohan.
Applying or connecting this case, Barton vs Armstrong 197315, with the mentioned
statement that there is a positive act on the part of Julia as she has thrown a glass towards
Mohan. This positive act is constituted as an assault to Mohan. Therefore, Mohan can claim
compensation Julia for an assault to her.
Applying this Dunwoodie vs Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd 201416 case in the mentioned
situation, there is a reasonable apprehension to Mohan for physical contact immediately as Julia
has thrown the glass to her. Therefore, Mohan can claim damages or compensation from Julia for
assault or trespass to the person.
Applying Douglas vs Hello Ltd 200517 in this situation, guests of Julia have made a
trespass to land as they have parked their car on the driveway of Mohan. It has constituted a
trespass to land. It is actionable per se. Therefore, Mohan can claim damages or compensation
from Julia without showing actual loss due to happen from such trespass to land.
In the application of the case of Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd vs Tivoli Freeholders
196918 in this given situation, Julia has interfered the land of Mohan, which has constituted a
private nuisance on the part of Julia towards Mohan. Therefore, Mohan can claim compensation
from Julia.
14 Rixon v Star City Casino (2001) 53 NSWLR 98
15 Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27
16 Dunwoodie v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd [2014] NSWCA 24, Court of Appeal (NSW,
Australia).
17 Douglas v Hello Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (18 May 2005)
18 Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd v Tivoli Freeholders [1969] VR 62

5
TORT LAW
Applying the case of Vincent vs Peacock 197319 in this given situation, Julia can be liable
or responsible for making a loud noise, which has disturbed to Mohan. Such loud noise has
created a private nuisance to Mohan. Therefore, Mohan can claim damaged from Julia for such
private nuisance.
Applying such case of Oldham vs Lawson 197620 in this circumstance, Julia has made a
continuous interference and obstruct to the peace of Mohan. It has established a private nuisance
to the plaintiff. Therefore, Mohan has the right to claim compensation from Julia.
Applying the case of Walter vs Selfe 185121 in this situation, the wrongful act has been
done by Julia as she has switched on the music loudly, which has created a private nuisance to
Mohan. It has disturbed the ordinary comfort of Mohan, which has established a private nuisance
to her. Therefore, she can claim damages for such nuisance.
In the application of the case of Sturges vs Bridgman 187922 in this circumstance, Julia
has made an interference, which has generally expected on such land of Mohan, which is
occupied by Mohan. Therefore, Mohan can claim damages from Julia for such nuisance.
Applying the case of Clarey vs The Principal and Council of the Women’s College
195323, in this situation, it can be stated positively that as a neighbour of the plaintiff, the
defendant should be cautious towards his neighbour not to disturb. Therefore, Mohan can claim
damages from Julia for such private nuisance, which has caused by Julia to Mohan.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded on the basis of the statement of Julia that there is a
trespass to land on the part of the guests of Julia. There is a trespass to a person on the part of
Julia as she has thrown glass towards her neighbour, Mohan. There is also a private nuisance,
which has done by Julia towards Mohan. Therefore, Mohan can claim damages for such tort,
which has occurred by Julia.
19 Vincent v Peacock [1973] 1 NSWLR 466
20 Oldham v Lawson (No 1) [1976] VR 654 at 655 per Harris J.
21 Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315 per Knight-Brice VC
22 Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852 at 865, CA
23 Clarey v The Principal and Council of the Women’s College (1953) 90 CLR 170.

6
TORT LAW
However, there are several things missing in the statement of Mohan, such as whether
Mohan is the owner of the driveway from where he has driven out his car.
Part B
Questions, which should ask Mohan:
 Whether she is the owner of the driveway from where he has driven out his car, where the
guests of Julia has parked their car. (Close-ended question)
 Whether Mohan has informed the police or made any general diary to the police officers
for such nuisance and if yes, then please produce those documents, as it is essential for
proceeding any legal step. (Close-ended question)
 Whether she has gone to the doctor for such injury done by Julia as she has thrown the
glass and Mohan’s hand has been injured. If yes, then please produce the prescriptions.
(Close-ended question)
 What steps have you taken for such nuisance done by your neighbour? (Open-ended)
 Why did you mention in your statement that you do not want to involve any police or
council? (Open-ended)
 Why does she not send any notice to Julia for such nuisance? (Open-ended)

7
TORT LAW
Bibliography
Journals
Gross, Katie P. "They Trespass Her Body Like They Trespass This Land: Civil Criminal
Jurisdictional Issues Involving Assaults on Tribal Lands by Non-Indians." (2019) Hastings Race
& Poverty LJ 16 :91.
Stickley, Amanda P. "The issue of consent: For the plaintiff or defendant to prove in trespass to
person?." (2015) Australian Civil Liability 12.5 :90-92.
Book
Lunney, Mark. "Intentional interference with the person." The Law of Tort. (LexisNexis
Butterworths, 2015).
Cases
Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27
Clarey v The Principal and Council of the Women’s College (1953) 90 CLR 170.
Douglas v Hello Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (18 May 2005).
Dunwoodie v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd [2014] NSWCA 24, Court of Appeal (NSW, Australia).
Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967)
Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd v Tivoli Freeholders [1969] VR 62
Oldham v Lawson (No 1) [1976] VR 654 at 655 per Harris J.
Rixon v Star City Casino (2001) 53 NSWLR 98
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852 at 865, CA
Vincent v Peacock [1973] 1 NSWLR 466.
Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G & Sm 315 per Knight-Brice VC.

8
TORT LAW