TORTS AFFECTING THE PERSON, GENERAL DEFENCES AND REMEDIES Cases and Statues
TOPIC 5: TORTS AFFECTING THE PERSON, GENERAL DEFENCES AND REMEDIES – CASES AND STATUTES
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
1. ASSAULT CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephens v Myers (1830) | Defendant advanced towards claimant angrily during a meeting and was stopped before reaching him. | Assault can occur where defendant’s conduct creates reasonable apprehension of immediate unlawful force. | Main case for threatening actions/gestures. |
| Tuberville v Savage (1669) | Defendant put hand on sword but said he would not attack because it was assize time. | Words can prevent assault if they show no immediate force will be used. | Use where words cancel the threat. |
| R v Meade and Belt (1823) | Older authority suggesting words alone cannot amount to assault. | Historical position only; modern law is broader. | Mention only if explaining development. |
| R v Ireland (1998) | Defendant made repeated silent telephone calls causing victims fear/psychiatric harm. | Words or silence can amount to assault if they cause apprehension of immediate unlawful force. | Main modern case for words and silence. |
| R v Constanza (1997) | Defendant sent threatening letters and made threatening calls. | Words can amount to assault where they create fear of violence. | Use for threats by communication. |
| R v Venna (1976) | Defendant kicked police officer during arrest. | Assault/battery may be committed intentionally or recklessly. | Use for mens rea: intention or recklessness. |
| Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (1985) | Miners made threatening gestures towards workers travelling by bus. | Threatening gestures can amount to assault, but claimant must apprehend immediate force. | Use for gestures and immediacy. |
2. ASSAULT RULE TABLE
| Issue | Rule | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Intentional or reckless act causing reasonable apprehension of immediate unlawful force. | Stephens v Myers |
| No physical contact needed | Assault is about apprehension, not actual touching. | Stephens v Myers |
| Words can amount to assault | Words alone may be enough in modern law. | R v Ireland; R v Constanza |
| Silence can amount to assault | Silence may be threatening depending on context. | R v Ireland |
| Words can negate assault | Words may show no immediate force will be used. | Tuberville v Savage |
| Future threats | Usually not assault unless they create immediate apprehension. | R v Ireland |
| Intention/recklessness | Defendant must intend or be reckless as to causing apprehension. | R v Venna |
| Actionable per se | No proof of damage required. | General trespass tort principle |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
3. BATTERY CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cole v Turner (1704) | Classic statement on touching. | The least touching of another in anger is battery. | Use for basic meaning of force. |
| Collins v Wilcock (1984) | Police officer took hold of claimant’s arm without lawful arrest power. | Everyday contact is impliedly consented to, but touching beyond ordinary social contact can be battery. | Main modern case for unlawful force and everyday contact. |
| Wilson v Pringle (1987) | Schoolboy pulled another boy’s bag, causing injury. | Hostility is not an essential requirement of battery. | Use for relevance of hostility. |
| Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) | Defendant accidentally drove onto police officer’s foot, then refused to move. | A continuing act can amount to battery once mens rea is formed. | Use for continuing battery. |
| Scott v Shepherd (1773) | Defendant threw a lit firework which eventually injured claimant. | Force may be applied indirectly. | Use where defendant causes object/thing to hit claimant. |
| R v Venna (1976) | Defendant kicked police officer during arrest. | Battery may be intentional or reckless. | Use for mental element. |
| Chatterton v Gerson (1981) | Patient consented to operation but later alleged insufficient warning. | If patient understands broad nature of treatment, consent prevents battery. | Use for medical battery/consent. |
| Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) (1990) | Adult patient lacked capacity; doctors sought authority for treatment. | Medical treatment may be lawful under necessity/best interests where patient lacks capacity. | Use for medical necessity. |
| R v Brown (1993) | Participants consented to sadomasochistic injuries. | Consent is limited by public policy; cannot always consent to serious harm. | Use for limits of consent. |
| Appleton v Garrett (1997) | Dentist carried out unnecessary treatment on patients. | Consent may be invalid where patient is deceived as to necessity/nature of treatment. | Use for fraud and medical battery. |
4. BATTERY RULE TABLE
| Issue | Rule | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Intentional or reckless direct application of unlawful force. | Collins v Wilcock |
| Force | Any physical contact; injury not required. | Cole v Turner |
| Everyday contact | Ordinary social contact is impliedly consented to. | Collins v Wilcock |
| Hostility | Hostility is not required. | Wilson v Pringle |
| Indirect force | Force may be applied through an object or chain of events. | Scott v Shepherd |
| Continuing act | Battery may arise where contact continues after defendant forms mens rea. | Fagan |
| Medical consent | Valid consent prevents battery. | Chatterton v Gerson |
| Medical necessity | Treatment without consent may be lawful where necessary and in best interests. | Re F |
| Consent limits | Consent may fail on public policy grounds. | R v Brown |
| Actionable per se | No proof of damage required. | General trespass tort principle |
5. FALSE IMPRISONMENT CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v Jones (1845) | Claimant was stopped from crossing part of a bridge but could go another way. | False imprisonment requires total restraint; partial obstruction is not enough. | Main case for total restraint. |
| Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) | Claimant was kept in a room while guards remained outside, though he was unaware. | Knowledge of restraint is not essential. | Main case for awareness not required. |
| Murray v Ministry of Defence (1988) | Claimant was detained by soldiers in Northern Ireland. | Awareness is not essential, but may affect damages. | Use for modern confirmation of awareness point. |
| Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd (1910) | Claimant refused to pay exit fee from ferry terminal. | No false imprisonment where there is a reasonable lawful means of exit or agreed condition. | Use for reasonable escape/lawful restriction. |
| Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co (1915) | Miner wanted to leave mine before end of shift but employer refused immediate lift. | No false imprisonment where restraint results from agreed contractual conditions. | Use for lawful restraint/contractual restriction. |
| R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans (2000) | Prisoner was detained beyond correct release date due to calculation error. | Unlawful detention is false imprisonment even if defendant acted in good faith. | Use for unlawful detention and strict liability style. |
| Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) | Protestors were contained by police during demonstration. | Police containment may be lawful if necessary and proportionate. | Use for lawful authority/public order. |
| Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2009) | Prison officers’ strike caused prisoners to remain locked in cells. | False imprisonment may arise where confinement is unlawful. | Use for prison detention issues if relevant. |
6. FALSE IMPRISONMENT RULE TABLE
| Issue | Rule | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Unlawful total restraint of freedom of movement. | Bird v Jones |
| Total restraint | Complete restriction required. | Bird v Jones |
| Partial obstruction | Not enough if claimant can go another reasonable way. | Bird v Jones |
| Reasonable escape | No false imprisonment if safe/practical escape exists. | Robinson v Balmain |
| Knowledge | Claimant need not know of restraint. | Meering; Murray |
| Lawful authority | Lawful arrest/statutory detention defeats claim. | Austin; PACE 1984 |
| Contractual restriction | Agreed restrictions may be lawful. | Herd |
| Unlawful detention | Good faith mistake is no defence to unlawful detention. | Brockhill |
| Actionable per se | No proof of damage required. | General trespass tort principle |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
7. CONSENT CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collins v Wilcock (1984) | Police officer grabbed claimant’s arm. | Ordinary everyday contact is impliedly consented to; contact beyond that may be battery. | Use for implied consent in daily life. |
| Chatterton v Gerson (1981) | Patient consented to medical treatment but claimed insufficient information. | Consent is valid for battery if claimant understands broad nature of treatment. | Use for medical consent. |
| R v Brown (1993) | Participants consented to sadomasochistic injuries. | Consent cannot always justify serious harm; public policy limits consent. | Use for limits of consent. |
| Appleton v Garrett (1997) | Dentist performed unnecessary dental work. | Fraud/deception may invalidate consent. | Use where consent obtained dishonestly. |
| Condon v Basi (1985) | Footballer injured by bad tackle. | Sports participants consent to ordinary risks, not reckless conduct outside expected standards. | Use for sport consent. |
| Wooldridge v Sumner (1963) | Spectator injured at horse show. | Spectators accept ordinary risks of sport, unless conduct shows reckless disregard. | Use for sport/spectator consent. |
| Blake v Galloway (2004) | Friends threw twigs/bark during horseplay. | Participants in horseplay consent to ordinary risks unless conduct is very reckless or outside agreed activity. | Use for informal sport/horseplay. |
8. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith v Baker & Sons (1891) | Employee knew rocks were being moved overhead and was injured. | Knowledge of risk is not the same as voluntary acceptance. | Main case: knowledge ≠consent. |
| Dann v Hamilton (1939) | Claimant accepted lift from driver who had been drinking. | Mere knowledge of risk does not automatically prove volenti. | Use to limit volenti. |
| Morris v Murray (1991) | Claimant flew with very drunk pilot and was injured. | Volenti succeeds where risk is obvious and voluntarily accepted. | Use where claimant clearly accepts extreme risk. |
| ICI v Shatwell (1965) | Experienced workers ignored safety instructions with explosives. | Volenti may succeed where experienced employees freely accept risk outside employer’s pressure. | Use as rare employment volenti success. |
| Nettleship v Weston (1971) | Driving instructor injured by learner driver. | Volenti did not apply; accepting learner driver risk was not consent to negligence. | Use to limit volenti. |
| Haynes v Harwood (1935) | Policeman injured rescuing people from bolting horses. | Rescuers usually do not voluntarily accept risk in volenti sense. | Use for rescue situations. |
9. SELF-DEFENCE CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cockcroft v Smith (1705) | Defendant bit claimant’s finger during confrontation. | Force used in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate. | Classic self-defence case. |
| Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2008) | Police shot suspect during armed raid. | In civil law, self-defence requires honest belief and objectively reasonable force. | Main tort case for self-defence. |
| Revill v Newbery (1996) | Elderly occupier shot burglar through shed door. | Excessive force against trespasser/criminal may create liability. | Use for disproportionate force. |
| Lane v Holloway (1968) | Defendant severely injured older man after minor confrontation. | Excessive retaliation is not protected as self-defence. | Use for disproportionate response. |
| Beckford v R (1988) | Criminal case on defensive force. | A person may use force based on honestly held belief in need for defence. | Use carefully as criminal authority supporting honest belief. |
10. NECESSITY CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) (1990) | Adult patient lacked capacity; treatment was proposed in her best interests. | Necessity may justify medical treatment where patient lacks capacity and treatment is in best interests. | Main medical necessity case. |
| Leigh v Gladstone (1909) | Prison officials force-fed hunger-striking prisoner. | Necessity may justify interference to preserve life/health. | Use for medical/public authority necessity. |
| Southwark LBC v Williams (1971) | Homeless families occupied empty council houses and pleaded necessity. | Necessity is interpreted narrowly; poverty/hardship alone not enough. | Use to limit necessity. |
| Cope v Sharpe (No 2) (1912) | Defendant entered land to prevent spread of fire. | Necessity may justify interference with property in emergency. | Use for emergency necessity. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
11. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE CASES
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) | Claimant trapped in public toilet injured herself trying to climb out. | Damages reduced where claimant partly caused injury. | Use for contributory negligence. |
| Froom v Butcher (1976) | Claimant injured in car accident while not wearing seatbelt. | Damages may be reduced where claimant fails to take reasonable precautions. | Use for seatbelt/safety precaution cases. |
| Jones v Livox Quarries (1952) | Claimant rode dangerously on back of vehicle and was injured. | Claimant’s fault must contribute to damage. | Use for causation in contributory negligence. |
| Gough v Thorne (1966) | Young child crossed road after lorry driver signalled; child injured. | Young children may not be contributorily negligent if they act reasonably for their age. | Use for child claimant. |
12. REMEDIES CASES
| Case | Remedy Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|
| Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) | Damages aim to put claimant in position they would have been in had tort not occurred. | Main compensatory damages principle. |
| Rookes v Barnard (1964) | Exemplary damages available in limited categories, including oppressive/arbitrary conduct by government servants. | Use for rare punitive damages. |
| Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire (2001) | Exemplary damages may be available beyond older limited tort categories if Rookes categories satisfied. | Use for modern exemplary damages point. |
| Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1998) | Guidance on damages for wrongful arrest/false imprisonment and aggravated damages. | Use for false imprisonment damages. |
| John v MGN Ltd (1997) | Juries/courts should avoid excessive damages; awards should be proportionate. | Use for proportionality of damages. |
| Coventry v Lawrence (2014) | Damages may sometimes be awarded instead of injunction. | Use for injunction/damages choice, especially land torts. |
13. STATUTES TABLE
| Statute / Section | Rule | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 | Where claimant suffers damage partly through their own fault and partly through another’s fault, damages may be reduced as the court thinks just and equitable. | Use for contributory negligence; claim does not fail completely, damages reduce. |
| Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 | A person may use reasonable force in prevention of crime or assisting lawful arrest. | Use for lawful force/self-defence/lawful authority. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s24 | Gives constables statutory powers of arrest without warrant in specified circumstances. | Use for lawful arrest as defence to false imprisonment. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s24A | Provides limited arrest powers for persons other than constables. | Use where citizen’s arrest/lawful restraint appears. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s117 | Allows reasonable force where necessary in exercising powers under PACE. | Use for police use of reasonable force. |
| Limitation Act 1980, s11 | Special limitation period applies to actions for damages for personal injuries. | Use only if limitation/time issue appears. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| Senior Courts Act 1981, s37 | High Court may grant injunctions where just and convenient. | Use for injunction remedies. (Legislation.gov.uk) |
| Human Rights Act 1998 | Incorporates Convention rights into domestic law, including liberty/security concerns relevant to detention. | Use briefly in false imprisonment/public authority evaluation where relevant. |
| Mental Capacity Act 2005 | Provides framework for decisions/treatment for persons lacking capacity. | Use with modern medical necessity/best interests discussion. |
| Mental Health Act 1983 | Provides lawful powers for mental health detention. | Use where psychiatric detention may be lawful restraint. |
14. ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT – FINAL CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Tort | Case | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Assault | Stephens v Myers | Threatening advance can be assault. |
| Assault | Tuberville v Savage | Words can negate assault. |
| Assault | R v Ireland | Words/silence can amount to assault. |
| Assault | R v Constanza | Threatening communications can amount to assault. |
| Assault | R v Venna | Intention or recklessness sufficient. |
| Battery | Cole v Turner | Least touching may be battery. |
| Battery | Collins v Wilcock | Everyday contact impliedly consented to; excessive contact is battery. |
| Battery | Wilson v Pringle | Hostility not essential. |
| Battery | Fagan | Continuing act may be battery. |
| Battery | Scott v Shepherd | Indirect application of force can be battery. |
| Battery | Chatterton v Gerson | Broad consent to medical treatment prevents battery. |
| Battery | Re F | Necessity may justify treatment where patient lacks capacity. |
| False imprisonment | Bird v Jones | Total restraint required. |
| False imprisonment | Meering | Knowledge of restraint not essential. |
| False imprisonment | Murray | Awareness not essential but may affect damages. |
| False imprisonment | Robinson v Balmain | Reasonable/lawful exit condition prevents claim. |
| False imprisonment | Herd | Contractual restriction may be lawful restraint. |
| False imprisonment | Brockhill Prison | Unlawful detention creates liability even if mistake made in good faith. |
| False imprisonment | Austin | Police containment may be lawful if necessary/proportionate. |
15. DEFENCES – FINAL CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Defence | Case | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Consent | Collins v Wilcock | Everyday contact impliedly consented to. |
| Consent | Chatterton v Gerson | Medical consent valid if broad nature understood. |
| Consent | R v Brown | Consent limited by public policy. |
| Consent | Condon v Basi | Sports consent covers ordinary risks, not reckless conduct. |
| Consent | Wooldridge v Sumner | Spectators accept ordinary sporting risks. |
| Volenti | Smith v Baker | Knowledge of risk is not consent. |
| Volenti | Dann v Hamilton | Knowing driver drank alcohol not automatically volenti. |
| Volenti | Morris v Murray | Volenti succeeds where obvious extreme risk accepted. |
| Volenti | ICI v Shatwell | Rare employment success where experienced workers freely accepted risk. |
| Self-defence | Cockcroft v Smith | Defensive force must be reasonable. |
| Self-defence | Ashley | Civil self-defence requires honest belief and objectively reasonable force. |
| Self-defence | Revill v Newbery | Excessive force against burglar may create liability. |
| Self-defence | Lane v Holloway | Excessive retaliation not self-defence. |
| Necessity | Re F | Medical treatment may be justified by necessity/best interests. |
| Necessity | Leigh v Gladstone | Necessity may justify action to preserve life/health. |
| Necessity | Southwark LBC v Williams | Necessity is narrowly applied. |
| Necessity | Cope v Sharpe | Emergency entry may be justified to prevent greater harm. |
| Contributory negligence | Sayers v Harlow | Claimant’s careless escape attempt reduced damages. |
| Contributory negligence | Froom v Butcher | Failure to wear seatbelt can reduce damages. |
| Contributory negligence | Gough v Thorne | Children judged according to age and understanding. |
16. REMEDIES – FINAL MEMORY TABLE
| Remedy | Rule | Case / Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Compensatory damages | Put claimant in position they would have been in without tort. | Livingstone v Rawyards |
| Nominal damages | Small award where right violated but little/no loss. | Actionable per se torts |
| Aggravated damages | Extra compensation for humiliation, distress or insulting conduct. | Thompson v Commissioner of Police |
| Exemplary damages | Punitive damages in rare cases. | Rookes v Barnard; Kuddus |
| Damages for false imprisonment | Award may reflect loss of liberty, distress and circumstances of detention. | Thompson |
| Injunction | Court order stopping/compelling conduct. | Senior Courts Act 1981, s37 |
| Damages reduced | Reduction where claimant partly at fault. | Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 |
| Damages instead of injunction | Court may award damages rather than injunction in suitable cases. | Coventry v Lawrence |
17. FINAL STATUTE MEMORY TABLE
| Statute | One-Line Rule |
|---|---|
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 | Damages may be reduced where claimant partly caused their own damage. |
| Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 | Reasonable force may be used to prevent crime or assist lawful arrest. |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s24 | Constables have statutory arrest powers in specified circumstances. |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s24A | Limited citizen’s arrest powers. |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s117 | Reasonable force may be used where necessary to exercise PACE powers. |
| Limitation Act 1980, s11 | Special time limit for personal injury actions. |
| Senior Courts Act 1981, s37 | High Court may grant injunctions where just and convenient. |
| Human Rights Act 1998 | Relevant to liberty/security and public authority detention. |
| Mental Capacity Act 2005 | Modern framework for decisions for persons lacking capacity. |
| Mental Health Act 1983 | May provide lawful authority for psychiatric detention. |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.