TORT LAW TRESSPASS TO THE PERSON

ASSAULT

BATTERY

It is an intentional act that causes another person

reasonably to apprehend immediate violence to
their person.

It is a direct and intentional application of

force to another person without that person's
consent.

Essentials:

Essentials:

There must be a threat of immediate violence. If

the threat of violence is not immediate, there is no
assault.

The physical contact must be unwanted by the

plaintiff.

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (1985)

The defendant must be able to carry out the
threat. If the defendant cannot do so, the threat of
violence is no immediate and therefore, it would
not amount to assault.
Stephens v Myers (1830)
Even if the threat of voilence is prevented or
thwarted, there can still be an assault. As long as
the act of the defendant causes a reasonable
appprehension of fear of immediate violence,
there is an assault.
Even if the act of the defendant is not threatening,
it can still amount to assault if it is accompanied
by threatening words. Eg; showing a knife to
another person and saying Your money or your
life.
Words alone may be an assault. Eg; saying I'll
kill you.
At the same time, words may negate an act from
becoming an assault.
Turbeville v Savage (1669)
''If it were not assize time, Iwould not take such
language from you.''
The intention to actually use the threatened
violence is not a requirement. As long as the
defendant had the intention to cause fear to the
plaintiff, his acts can be assault. Eg; Pointing a
fake gun to another person.

'Force' does not mean violent force. Any

physical contact with the claimant's body, or
clothing being worn at the time is considered
as force.
Nash v Sheen (1953)
B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002), (mentioned
in R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall
'an unwanted kiss may be battery', facts of
the case are not entirely relevent.)
There is no requirement of violence.
There is no requirement of injury to the
claimant.
The defendant must have intended to cause the
physical contact. If the act is not intentional, it
is not a battery Letang v Cooper (1965)
It does not matter if the claimant is not the
intended ''target' Livingstone v Minister of
Defence (1984)

TORT LAW TRESSPASS TO THE PERSON

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

It is the unlawful prevention of another from

exercising their freedom of movement. 'False'
means 'wrongful'.
Essentials:
The tort is not limited to actually locking
someone away. Completely depriving someone of
their freedom of movement is enough even if it is
for a very short time.
The defendant must have prevented the claimant
from moving in any direction or there must not be
any means of escape Bird v Jones (1845)
If there are other means of escape but
unreasonable, it is still false imprisonment.
The false imprisonment must be caused by a
direct and positive act Sayers v Harlow Urban
District Council (1958)
The claimant need not know that he was being
imprisoned at the time Meering v GrahameWhite Aviation Co. Ltd (1920)
However, where a person was completely
unaware of being detained, and suffered no actual
harm from it, only nominal damages would
normally be awarded. - Murray v Ministry of
Defence (1988)