Denning L.J held: ‘…when the injury is not inflicted intentionally but negligently, I would say the only cause of action is negligence not trespass’

Claimant was tanning outside the hotel on the grass parts by the car park, and Cooper accidentally ran her over, but waited too long to sue for personal injury and used trespass as the cause. However she could not have used trespass as it requires an intentional wrong which the defendant lacked. 

Section 2- actions in tort must be brought within 6 years

Section 11- personal injury claims should be brought within three years

Section 33- sometimes personal injury claims can be extended to more than 3 years period, depending whether it is equitable 

A claim over sexual abuse that happened to someone when they were a child would fall within section 2 of the Limitation Act. However, with sexual abuse claims people often don’t want to admit to these and it takes a while for people to come out with them. The court here decided that the 6 year limitation period would apply here, which means that section 33 would not be able to apply to her. This decision was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. This case was then tried as a negligence case, in order to benefit with section 33.

The defendant was convicted in 1989 for attempted rape and was sentenced to imprisonment. He was on day release, decided to play the lottery and won 7 million pounds. It was now seen as worth to sue him, but at first it was said that its too late. The House of Lords decided that the victim should be able to sue him under section 11 in order to be able to use section 33.  Said that there has to be some level of negligence (despite it not requiring intention) in this kind of behaviour and therefore victims allowed to use section 11.

 The intention for battery was formed at the time when the defendant realised he was on the claimants foot and refused to move.

The defendant made silent telephone calls to the victims. In dealing with the issue of silence as an assault, the House of Lords tackled the issue of words as a assault. 

The proposition that ‘words can never suffice [for the basis of assault] is unrealistic and indefensible. There is no reason why something said should be in incapable of causing an apprehension of immediate person violence’.  

A meeting gets heated, and the defendant advances towards the claimant in order to hit him, but doesn’t get near enough to hit him. Would maybe not be considered assault because it has to be reasonable that the person will actually be hit. Because the person was really far away it will not be reasonable to be considered as assault. 

Objective test of reasonableness- irrelevant whether the claimant was actually in fear or could’ve defended themselves successfully.  

The claimant partially crossed Hammersmith Bridge when it was closed during a regatta. He was prevented from continuing to the end of the bridge and claimed that this limitation on his freedom to proceed amounted to false imprisonment.

The claim failed because there was only partial restraint on the claimant’s movement. He was not permitted to proceed but free to retrace his steps. False imprisonment requires total, not partial, constraint on the claimant’s free movement.

The claimant’s house was searched in her presence and she was arrested 30 minutes later. It was unclear whether she was aware that she was not free to leave during the period prior to her arrest.

The House of Lords held that there was no requirement ‘that the victim should be aware of the fact of denial of liberty…however if a person is unaware that he has been falsely imprisonment and has suffered no harm, he can normally expect to recover no more than nominal damages’ (per Lord Griffiths)

Davidson and his friend were detained by the police for two hours for shoplifting, before it became apparent that there were innocent. Davidson sued the store detective for false imprisonment, however it was the police that told the store detective to detain the claimant and therefore there was no case.

The defendant told the claimant that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident. This was untrue and had been meant as a practical joke. The claimant suffered a serious shock which left her to suffer adverse physical symptoms for a period of time.

It was held that a person who has ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff- that is to say, to infringe her legal rights to safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her’ as has provided a good cause of action.

He indented to provoke a reaction from her, however it was indirectly caused. Because he caused that level of psychological harm, the claim was successful, but it was indirectly caused (without intention- negligence). 

The requirements for liability for the intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm were clarified. 

-       The conduct must be to such a degree that it is considered calculated harm so that the defendant cannot say he did not mean to cause it

Section 1(1)- course of conduct 

Section 1(2)- would a reasonable person think the behaviour was harassment

Section 7(3)- on two or more occasions 

·      British Gas persistently sent unjustified bills and threatening letter to a former customer, and the question became whether this could amount to harassment. British Gas said that they cannot to held liable for their computerised system, however they know that the bills were unjustified. It was decided that this was harassment because even BG knew that the letters and bills were unjustified.

the House of Lords held that in cases where the assailant had acted in a mistaken belief that he was being attacked, this mistaken belief must be honestly and reasonably held in order for self-defence to be available against a civil claim in assault or battery. 

Murphy was a part of the gang that was supposed to hurt Culhane, however Culhane killed him in self-defence. Damage payments were substantially smaller than they usually would be due to Murphys illegal behaviour.

 The pub owner refused to let some of his customers out as they did not pay for his drinks. The courts said that this was seen as unlawful from the pub owner.

Balmain had to pay a penny to get on the ferry, decided to get out as it would take to long, and has to pay a penny to get out. The company said that he consented to the terms and conditions of the ferry when he paid the initial penny and therefore needs to pay to get out too.