Work On Photosynthesis
Work On Photosynthesis
Work On Photosynthesis
1) Threat to apply force: Threat of immanent harm to the person of the plaintiff by
gesture, actions and/or words; s 245 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). Words alone may
amount to an assault.
2) Actual or apparent ability: The defendant must have the apparent or actual ability to
carry out the threat; s 245 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), Brady v Schatzel [1911].
3) Fault: Defendant intended to cause apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff; Brady v
Schatzel [1911]. May have been recklessly caused. The plaintiff must be aware of the
threat.
1
TORTS Semester 1 -Complete Summary
1) Direct interference with liberty: The immediate result of the defendant’s action
restricts the plaintiff’s liberty; Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991]. Must be actively
promoted. Knowledge of false imprisonment at the material time is not required.
2) Total restraint: All directions are restrained with no reasonable means of escape; Myer
Stores Ltd v Soo [1991]. Need not be physical; plaintiff can be under a sense of
authority; Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991]. Lawful arrest doesn’t give rise to an action.
3) Fault: Intentional or negligent act by the defendant.
Trespass to Land
1) Identify parties. 2) Jurisdiction. 3) Onus of proof. 4) Time limit. 5) State interference.
*LOAA- (Always 6yrs- s10): Regardless of physical damage or no damage.
Elements
1) Title to sue: Exclusive possession of the land at the time of interference. Legally
recognised right to the enjoyment and use of the land; Newington v Windeyer (1985).
2) Direct interference with land: Immediate consequence of defendant’s actions
interferes with the land; either physical property or transient; Lord Bernstein of Leigh
v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978]. Must interfere with what is necessary for the
reasonable use and enjoyment of the land.
3) Unauthorised: Without lawful authority or licence. Outside the scope of express or
implied consent. Must leave within a reasonable period of consent being revoked;
Halliday v Nevill (1984), TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning (2002).
4) Fault: Voluntary or careless action; TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning (2002).
*Trespass ab initio- Defendant enters with lawful authority (not express or implied) and
commits an act outside of their authority then it is unauthorised from the initial entry.
Defences to Trespass
If the defendant is unable to deny fault, they still may escape liability if on the balance of
probabilities, it can be established that one of the available complete defences applies.
1) Consent: May be express or implied; Halliday v Nevill.
May exceed the scope of the consent.
Can be revoked or withdrawn by the plaintiff at any time; Anning.
Cannot be obtained through duress or fraud.
Age/ mental capacity to provide consent is considered.
2) Necessity: Necessary for the preservation of life or human safety, property protection;
Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985].
Must be an imminent threat of grave harm
Reasonable apparent necessity for undertaking the tortious act
2
TORTS Semester 1 -Complete Summary
4) Provocation: Only applies to trespass to person actions. This applies when the actions
of the plaintiff induce the defendant to lose self-control. In Queensland, it’s a
complete defence under s 269 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
Must prove they were provoked to lose self-control.
Acted before their passion had cooled.
The force used was proportionate to the provocation.
Not intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.