TORTS AFFECTING THE PERSON, GENERAL DEFENCES AND REMEDIES Everything Table
TOPIC 5: TORTS AFFECTING THE PERSON, GENERAL DEFENCES AND REMEDIES – EVERYTHING TABLE
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. CORE OVERVIEW TABLE
| Area | Meaning | Protected Interest | Damage Required? | Main Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault | Causing claimant to reasonably apprehend immediate unlawful force. | Personal security and freedom from fear of violence. | No, actionable per se. | Threats, raised fist, aggressive movement, threatening words/silence. |
| Battery | Direct application of unlawful force to another person. | Bodily integrity and physical autonomy. | No, actionable per se. | Touching, pushing, grabbing, hitting, spitting, unwanted contact. |
| False imprisonment | Unlawful total restraint of claimant’s freedom of movement. | Personal liberty and freedom of movement. | No, actionable per se. | Locked room, detention, blocked exits, refusal to release. |
| General defences | Legal reasons why defendant avoids or reduces liability. | Protects justified conduct. | Depends on defence. | Consent, self-defence, necessity, volenti, contributory negligence. |
| Remedies | Court response after liability is established. | Compensation/protection. | Depends on remedy. | Damages, injunctions, nominal/aggravated/exemplary damages. |
2. ACTIONABLE PER SE TABLE
| Tort | Actionable Per Se? | Meaning | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault | Yes | Claimant does not need to prove injury or financial loss. | Threat alone may be enough if elements are satisfied. |
| Battery | Yes | Unlawful touching itself is actionable. | Even slight contact can create liability. |
| False imprisonment | Yes | Loss of liberty itself is actionable. | Even short detention may be actionable. |
3. ASSAULT – ELEMENTS TABLE
| Element | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Act, words or silence | Defendant must create threat through conduct, words, silence or combination. | R v Ireland; R v Constanza | Silent calls, threats, messages, aggressive gestures. |
| Reasonable apprehension | Claimant must reasonably expect force. Fear is not strictly required. | Stephens v Myers | Claimant anticipates being hit or attacked. |
| Immediate force | Threat must be immediate or sufficiently imminent. | Stephens v Myers; R v Ireland | “I’ll hit you now” vs “I’ll hit you next year.” |
| Unlawful force | Threatened force must have no lawful justification. | General principle | Threat not based on arrest, self-defence, lawful restraint. |
| Intention or recklessness | Defendant must intend or be reckless as to causing apprehension. | R v Venna | Defendant knows threat may cause apprehension. |
| Words can negate assault | Words may show no immediate violence will occur. | Tuberville v Savage | Hand on sword but words remove immediate threat. |
| Damage not needed | Assault is actionable per se. | General trespass tort principle | No injury occurred but claimant apprehended force. |
4. ASSAULT – CONDUCT TABLE
| Conduct | Assault? | Explanation | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raising fist near claimant | Likely yes | Creates apprehension of immediate force. | Stephens v Myers |
| Advancing angrily towards claimant | Likely yes | Threatening movement may be enough. | Stephens v Myers |
| Pointing weapon | Likely yes | Creates expectation of immediate harm. | General principle |
| Threatening phone calls | Possible yes | Words can create apprehension. | R v Ireland; R v Constanza |
| Silent threatening phone calls | Possible yes | Silence may be threatening in context. | R v Ireland |
| Future threat only | Usually no | Force not immediate. | General principle |
| Words removing threat | No | No immediate force apprehended. | Tuberville v Savage |
| Mere insult | Usually no | No apprehension of force. | General principle |
5. ASSAULT – CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephens v Myers | Defendant advanced angrily towards claimant and was stopped. | Threatening action can amount to assault. | Use for gestures/actions. |
| Tuberville v Savage | Defendant put hand on sword but said he would not attack because it was assize time. | Words can negate assault. | Use where words remove immediacy. |
| R v Meade and Belt | Older case suggesting words alone cannot assault. | Historical view only. | Mention only for development. |
| R v Ireland | Silent phone calls caused victims fear. | Words or silence can amount to assault. | Use for modern law on words/silence. |
| R v Constanza | Threatening letters/calls caused fear. | Threatening words can amount to assault. | Use for communication threats. |
| R v Venna | Defendant kicked police officer. | Intention or recklessness sufficient. | Use for mental element. |
| Thomas v NUM | Threatening gestures towards workers in bus. | Gesture may be assault, but immediacy matters. | Use for threatening gestures. |
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.
6. BATTERY – ELEMENTS TABLE
| Element | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Force | Any physical contact may be force. Injury not needed. | Cole v Turner | Slight touching, pushing, grabbing. |
| Direct application | Force must be directly applied or caused by defendant. | Scott v Shepherd | Throwing object, setting event in motion. |
| Intention or recklessness | Defendant must intend or be reckless as to contact. | R v Venna | Deliberate/reckless touching. |
| Unlawful contact | Contact must lack consent or lawful justification. | Collins v Wilcock | Unwanted touching. |
| Hostility not required | Battery does not require anger or ill-will. | Wilson v Pringle | Horseplay, unwanted contact, medical treatment. |
| Continuing act | Continuing contact may become battery when mens rea forms. | Fagan | Car left on foot. |
| Everyday contact exception | Ordinary social contact is impliedly consented to. | Collins v Wilcock | Crowds, queues, public transport. |
| Damage not needed | Battery is actionable per se. | General trespass tort principle | No injury but unlawful touching. |
7. BATTERY – MEANING OF FORCE TABLE
| Type Of Force | Battery? | Explanation | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punching/kicking | Yes | Direct unlawful force. | General principle |
| Pushing/grabbing | Yes, if unlawful | Physical contact beyond ordinary social contact. | Collins v Wilcock |
| Slight touching | Possible yes | Least unlawful touching may be enough. | Cole v Turner |
| Spitting | Yes | Physical contact and violation of bodily integrity. | General principle |
| Pulling clothing/bag | Possible yes | Clothing/items closely connected to body can count. | Wilson v Pringle |
| Throwing object that hits claimant | Yes | Indirect force can be battery. | Scott v Shepherd |
| Medical treatment without consent | Yes, unless justified | Consent/necessity required. | Chatterton; Re F |
| Ordinary bump in crowd | Usually no | Implied consent to everyday contact. | Collins v Wilcock |
8. BATTERY – HOSTILITY TABLE
| Issue | Rule | Key Case | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old wording | “Least touching in anger” suggested hostility. | Cole v Turner | Historical wording. |
| Modern rule | Hostility is not required. | Wilson v Pringle | Do not make hostility an element. |
| Main focus | Was there unlawful touching? | Collins v Wilcock | Focus on consent/lawful justification. |
| Relevance of hostility | Hostility may help prove intention but is not essential. | Wilson v Pringle | Angry punch = strong evidence, but not required. |
9. BATTERY – CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cole v Turner | Classic old statement. | Least touching in anger may be battery. | Use for basic force. |
| Collins v Wilcock | Police officer grabbed claimant’s arm. | Ordinary contact impliedly consented to; excessive contact is battery. | Main modern battery case. |
| Wilson v Pringle | Schoolboy pulled another’s bag. | Hostility not essential. | Use for hostility. |
| Fagan v MPC | Defendant drove onto police officer’s foot and refused to move. | Continuing act can be battery. | Use for continuing contact. |
| Scott v Shepherd | Defendant threw lit firework causing injury. | Force can be indirect. | Use for objects/indirect force. |
| R v Venna | Defendant kicked officer. | Intention or recklessness sufficient. | Use for mens rea. |
| Chatterton v Gerson | Patient consented to treatment. | Broad understanding of treatment gives valid consent for battery. | Use for medical consent. |
| Re F | Patient lacked capacity; treatment proposed. | Necessity/best interests may justify treatment. | Use for medical necessity. |
| R v Brown | Consent to sadomasochistic injury. | Consent limited by public policy. | Use for limits of consent. |
| Appleton v Garrett | Dentist performed unnecessary treatment. | Fraud may invalidate consent. | Use for dishonest medical treatment. |
10. FALSE IMPRISONMENT – ELEMENTS TABLE
| Element | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total restraint | Claimant must be completely restricted. | Bird v Jones | One direction blocked but other routes available. |
| No reasonable escape | If safe/practical escape exists, claim may fail. | Robinson v Balmain | Exit exists but fee/condition applies. |
| Direct restraint | Defendant’s act must directly cause confinement. | General principle | Locked door, guard, physical barrier. |
| Intentional/voluntary act | Defendant must voluntarily impose restraint. | General principle | Deliberate detention. |
| Unlawful restraint | No lawful authority must exist. | Brockhill Prison | Detention beyond lawful power. |
| Knowledge not essential | Claimant need not know they are restrained. | Meering; Murray | Unaware detention. |
| Lawful authority defence | Arrest/statutory power/court order may justify detention. | Austin; PACE 1984 | Police/public authority detention. |
| Damage not needed | False imprisonment is actionable per se. | General trespass tort principle | Detention without injury. |
11. FALSE IMPRISONMENT – TOTAL RESTRAINT TABLE
| Situation | False Imprisonment? | Explanation | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locked room with no exit | Yes | Total restraint. | General principle |
| Guard blocks only exit | Yes | No reasonable escape. | General principle |
| One road blocked but other routes open | No | Partial restraint only. | Bird v Jones |
| Exit available but dangerous | Possible yes | Escape must be reasonable. | General principle |
| Exit available but lawful fee required | Usually no | Agreed/lawful exit condition. | Robinson v Balmain |
| Person unaware of guards outside | Yes possible | Knowledge not essential. | Meering |
| Prisoner detained beyond release date | Yes | Unlawful detention. | Brockhill Prison |
| Police containment for public safety | May be lawful | Must be necessary/proportionate. | Austin |
12. FALSE IMPRISONMENT – CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Case | Facts | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v Jones | Claimant blocked from part of bridge but could go another way. | Total restraint required. | Main case for total restraint. |
| Meering v Grahame-White Aviation | Claimant unaware guards were preventing departure. | Knowledge not essential. | Use for awareness. |
| Murray v Ministry of Defence | Claimant detained by soldiers. | Awareness not essential but affects damages. | Modern confirmation. |
| Robinson v Balmain Ferry | Claimant refused to pay exit fee. | Reasonable lawful exit condition prevents claim. | Use for reasonable escape/lawful restriction. |
| Herd v Weardale Steel | Miner wanted to leave before shift ended. | Contractual restriction may be lawful. | Use for lawful restraint. |
| R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans | Prisoner held too long by mistake. | Unlawful detention creates liability even if good faith. | Use for unlawful detention. |
| Austin v Commissioner of Police | Police contained protesters. | Containment may be lawful if necessary/proportionate. | Use for lawful authority/public order. |
| Iqbal v Prison Officers Association | Prisoners locked in cells due to strike. | Unlawful confinement may be false imprisonment. | Use for detention issues. |
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.
13. CONSENT TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| General consent | Valid consent makes contact lawful. | Collins v Wilcock | Everyday contact, battery. |
| Express consent | Clearly given consent. | General principle | Signed form/verbal agreement. |
| Implied consent | Inferred from circumstances. | Collins v Wilcock | Crowds, sport, ordinary social contact. |
| Medical consent | Consent valid if patient understands broad nature of treatment. | Chatterton v Gerson | Surgery/treatment. |
| Fraud | Fraud may invalidate consent if it affects nature/purpose. | Appleton v Garrett | Unnecessary treatment/deception. |
| Sport | Participants consent to ordinary risks of sport. | Condon v Basi | Tackles/contact injuries. |
| Spectators | Spectators accept ordinary sporting risks. | Wooldridge v Sumner | Injury watching sport. |
| Horseplay | Consent covers ordinary horseplay, not very reckless conduct. | Blake v Galloway | Friends messing around. |
| Public policy limits | Consent cannot always justify serious harm. | R v Brown | Serious deliberate injury. |
14. SELF-DEFENCE TABLE
| Requirement | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Honest belief | Defendant must honestly believe force is necessary. | Ashley; Beckford | Defendant claims defensive action. |
| Reasonable force | Force must be objectively reasonable/proportionate. | Ashley; Cockcroft v Smith | Excessive force issue. |
| Defence of others | Reasonable force may protect another person. | General principle | Defendant protects friend/family. |
| Defence of property | Reasonable force may protect property. | General principle | Intruder/trespasser. |
| Prevention of crime | Reasonable force may be used to prevent crime. | Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 | Arrest/preventing crime. |
| Police force | Police may use reasonable force under lawful powers. | PACE 1984, s117 | Police restraint/arrest. |
| Excessive force | Defence fails or liability arises. | Revill; Lane v Holloway | Defendant overreacts. |
15. NECESSITY TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| General necessity | Action justified to prevent greater harm. | Cope v Sharpe | Emergency entry/interference. |
| Medical necessity | Treatment may be justified if patient lacks capacity and treatment is in best interests. | Re F | Unconscious/incapable patient. |
| Preserve life/health | Interference may be justified to preserve life or health. | Leigh v Gladstone | Medical/public authority action. |
| Narrow defence | Necessity is not allowed merely for hardship or convenience. | Southwark LBC v Williams | Homelessness/need used as defence. |
| Requirements | Emergency, necessity, no reasonable alternative, proportionate response. | General principle | Any necessity scenario. |
16. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA TABLE
| Requirement | Rule | Key Case | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning | “To a willing person, no injury is done.” | General principle | Complete defence based on accepted risk. |
| Knowledge | Claimant must know risk. | Morris v Murray | Obvious danger. |
| Understanding | Claimant must understand nature of risk. | General principle | Did claimant appreciate danger? |
| Voluntary acceptance | Claimant must freely accept risk. | Smith v Baker | Knowledge alone is not enough. |
| Employment | Volenti rarely succeeds due to pressure/lack of choice. | Smith v Baker; Bowater | Workplace danger. |
| Rare employment success | May succeed if experienced worker freely accepts risk outside pressure. | ICI v Shatwell | Workers ignored safety rules. |
| Drunk driver | Mere lift from driver who drank not automatically volenti. | Dann v Hamilton | Passenger knows driver drank. |
| Extreme obvious risk | Volenti may succeed. | Morris v Murray | Flying with very drunk pilot. |
| Sport | Ordinary sporting risks may be accepted. | Wooldridge; Condon | Sport injury. |
| Rescue | Rescuers usually not treated as consenting. | Haynes v Harwood | Rescue attempt. |
17. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TABLE
| Area | Rule | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Claimant failed to take reasonable care for own safety. | Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 | Claimant partly at fault. |
| Effect | Damages reduced, claim does not fail completely. | LR(CN)A 1945, s1 | Reduction of damages. |
| Escape attempt | Careless escape may reduce damages. | Sayers v Harlow | Claimant worsens situation. |
| Seatbelt/safety | Failure to take basic safety precaution reduces damages. | Froom v Butcher | Seatbelt/helmet/safety gear. |
| Causation required | Claimant’s fault must contribute to damage. | Jones v Livox Quarries | Claimant careless but did it cause harm? |
| Children | Child judged according to age and understanding. | Gough v Thorne | Child claimant. |
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.
18. DEFENCES COMPARISON TABLE
| Defence | Complete Or Partial? | Main Requirement | Best Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent | Complete | Valid agreement to contact/conduct. | Battery, medical treatment, sport. |
| Self-defence | Complete if successful | Honest belief + reasonable force. | Assault/battery after defensive force. |
| Necessity | Complete if successful | Emergency + proportionate action. | Medical treatment, emergency restraint/entry. |
| Volenti | Complete | Knowledge + understanding + voluntary acceptance of risk. | Negligence/occupiers/sport/dangerous activity. |
| Contributory negligence | Partial | Claimant partly caused own damage. | Negligence, occupiers, personal injury. |
| Lawful authority | Complete | Statutory/common law power. | Police arrest, detention, restraint. |
| Illegality | May bar or limit claim | Claim connected to illegal conduct. | Criminal claimant, burglar, unlawful acts. |
19. REMEDIES TABLE
| Remedy | Meaning | Key Case / Statute | Exam Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensatory damages | Money to put claimant in position as if tort had not occurred. | Livingstone v Rawyards | Injury/loss suffered. |
| Nominal damages | Small award where right violated but no real loss. | Actionable per se torts | Assault/battery/false imprisonment with no injury. |
| Aggravated damages | Extra compensation for humiliation, distress or insulting conduct. | Thompson v Commissioner of Police | False imprisonment, oppressive conduct. |
| Exemplary damages | Punitive damages in rare cases. | Rookes v Barnard; Kuddus | Oppressive state conduct/profit-motivated wrongdoing. |
| Damages for false imprisonment | Compensation for loss of liberty, distress, length/circumstances. | Thompson | Unlawful detention. |
| Injunction | Court order stopping or requiring action. | Senior Courts Act 1981, s37 | Continuing/repeated wrong. |
| Damages instead of injunction | Court may award damages instead of injunction in suitable cases. | Coventry v Lawrence | Ongoing nuisance/trespass style remedy. |
| Reduced damages | Damages reduced for claimant fault. | LR(CN)A 1945, s1 | Contributory negligence. |
20. REMEDIES – TYPES OF DAMAGES TABLE
| Damage Type | Meaning | Usually Relevant To |
|---|---|---|
| General damages | Non-financial loss such as pain, suffering, loss of amenity. | Personal injury. |
| Special damages | Financial losses up to trial, e.g. medical costs, lost earnings. | Negligence/personal injury. |
| Future loss | Future care, future earnings, future treatment. | Serious personal injury. |
| Nominal damages | Symbolic award for rights violation. | Assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass. |
| Aggravated damages | Additional compensation for distress/humiliation. | Intentional torts, false imprisonment. |
| Exemplary damages | Punishment/deterrence, rare. | Oppressive state conduct. |
21. STATUTES TABLE
| Statute / Section | Rule | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|
| Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s1 | Damages reduced where claimant partly caused own damage. | Contributory negligence. |
| Criminal Law Act 1967, s3 | Reasonable force may be used to prevent crime or assist lawful arrest. | Self-defence/lawful force. |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s24 | Police arrest powers without warrant in specified circumstances. | Lawful arrest / false imprisonment defence. |
| PACE 1984, s24A | Limited citizen’s arrest powers. | Non-police arrest/lawful restraint. |
| PACE 1984, s117 | Reasonable force may be used where necessary to exercise PACE powers. | Police use of force. |
| Limitation Act 1980, s11 | Special limitation period for personal injury claims. | Only if limitation issue arises. |
| Senior Courts Act 1981, s37 | High Court may grant injunction where just and convenient. | Injunction remedies. |
| Human Rights Act 1998 | Relevant to liberty/security and public authority detention. | False imprisonment/public authority evaluation. |
| Mental Capacity Act 2005 | Framework for decisions for people lacking capacity. | Medical necessity/best interests. |
| Mental Health Act 1983 | Lawful authority for mental health detention. | Lawful restraint. |
22. FINAL CASE MEMORY TABLE
| Area | 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 may be 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 force can be battery. |
| Battery | Chatterton v Gerson | Medical consent valid if broad nature understood. |
| Battery | Re F | Medical necessity may justify treatment. |
| False imprisonment | Bird v Jones | Total restraint required. |
| False imprisonment | Meering | Knowledge of restraint not essential. |
| False imprisonment | Murray | Awareness not essential but affects 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 good faith mistake. |
| False imprisonment | Austin | Police containment may be lawful if necessary/proportionate. |
| Consent | R v Brown | Consent limited by public policy. |
| Consent | Condon v Basi | Sport consent covers ordinary risks. |
| Consent | Wooldridge v Sumner | Spectators accept ordinary sporting risks. |
| Volenti | Smith v Baker | Knowledge of risk is not consent. |
| Volenti | Morris v Murray | Obvious extreme risk knowingly accepted. |
| Volenti | ICI v Shatwell | Rare employment volenti success. |
| Self-defence | Ashley | Honest belief plus objectively reasonable force. |
| Self-defence | Revill v Newbery | Excessive force against burglar may create liability. |
| Necessity | Re F | Necessity/best interests can justify treatment. |
| Necessity | Southwark v Williams | Necessity interpreted narrowly. |
| Contributory negligence | Sayers v Harlow | Claimant’s careless conduct may reduce damages. |
| Remedies | Livingstone v Rawyards | Damages aim to restore claimant’s position. |
| Remedies | Rookes v Barnard | Exemplary damages limited. |
| Remedies | Thompson | Guidance on false imprisonment/aggravated damages. |
23. FINAL EXAM METHOD TABLE
| Step | What To Ask | Relevant Area |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is there threat of immediate force? | Assault |
| 2 | Is there actual unlawful physical contact? | Battery |
| 3 | Is there total restraint of movement? | False imprisonment |
| 4 | Is damage required? | No, all three are actionable per se. |
| 5 | Did claimant consent? | Consent defence |
| 6 | Was defendant protecting self/others/property? | Self-defence |
| 7 | Was there emergency preventing greater harm? | Necessity |
| 8 | Did claimant knowingly and voluntarily accept risk? | Volenti |
| 9 | Did claimant partly cause own damage? | Contributory negligence |
| 10 | Was there lawful authority? | Arrest/detention/police/statutory powers |
| 11 | What remedy is suitable? | Damages/injunction/nominal/aggravated/exemplary |
| 12 | Should damages be reduced? | Contributory negligence |
24. FINAL CHAINS TO MEMORISE
| Chain | Must Write |
|---|---|
| Assault chain | Act/words/silence → intention/recklessness → reasonable apprehension → immediate unlawful force → no damage needed. |
| Battery chain | Force → direct application → intention/recklessness → unlawful contact → no lawful justification → no damage needed. |
| False imprisonment chain | Total restraint → no reasonable escape → direct/intentional restraint → unlawful → awareness not essential. |
| Consent chain | Genuine consent → capacity/understanding → voluntary → within scope → complete defence. |
| Medical consent chain | Broad nature understood → consent valid → no battery; if no capacity, consider necessity/best interests. |
| Self-defence chain | Honest belief → defensive purpose → reasonable/proportionate force → complete defence if satisfied. |
| Necessity chain | Emergency → necessary act → no reasonable alternative → proportionate → complete defence. |
| Volenti chain | Knowledge → understanding → voluntary acceptance → complete defence; knowledge alone not enough. |
| Employment volenti chain | Risk known → but pressure/lack of choice → volenti usually fails. |
| Sport consent chain | Ordinary risks accepted → reckless/outside rules not accepted. |
| Contributory negligence chain | Claimant careless → caused/contributed to injury → damages reduced, claim not defeated. |
| Remedies chain | Right violated/loss suffered → damages or injunction → consider nominal/aggravated/exemplary → reduce if contributory negligence. |
25. FINAL EXAM TRAPS TABLE
| Trap | Correct Rule |
|---|---|
| Assault requires physical contact. | No, assault only requires apprehension of immediate unlawful force. |
| Battery requires injury. | No, battery only requires unlawful force/contact. |
| False imprisonment requires a locked room. | No, threats/guards/authority can restrain too. |
| False imprisonment can be partial. | No, restraint must be total. |
| Claimant must know they are imprisoned. | No, knowledge is not essential. |
| Hostility is required for battery. | No, hostility is not essential. |
| Words cannot be assault. | Modern law says words can amount to assault. |
| Silence cannot be assault. | Silence can amount to assault depending on context. |
| Consent always works. | Consent must be valid and within scope. |
| Volenti means claimant knew the risk. | Knowledge alone is not enough; voluntary acceptance required. |
| Employees usually consent to workplace risks. | Volenti rarely succeeds in employment. |
| Self-defence allows any force. | Force must be reasonable and proportionate. |
| Necessity is easy to prove. | Necessity is narrow and requires genuine emergency. |
| Contributory negligence defeats the claim. | It reduces damages only. |
| No injury means no remedy. | Nominal damages may be awarded for actionable per se torts. |
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.