Torts Week 2 Trespass to Land Trespass to land/chattels direct interference with property in possession of P w/o consent.

P w/o consent. Trespass = no need to prove damages Title to sue prove exclusive possession of land at time of interference (Powell v McFarlane; Whittlesea Council v Abbatangelo) Trespass to land is limited in its capacity to protect privacy. CLA only apply in exceptional cases for trespass mostly negligence Balance b/w rights of public to airspace and of occupier (Baron v Skyviews & General Ltd) Possession -> Newington v Windeyer, owners engaged in many acts of ownership over the years, which constituted possession. Walking/driving onto premises w/o consent (Lincoln Hunter P/L v Willesee) Remains upon land after permission withdrawn (Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse) Leaving rubbish upon land (Konskier v B Goodman) Fixtures (air con unit attached to building part of land) Chattels (goods such as dogs, motor vehicles etc) To be in possession o Intention to exercise control o Actual control Exceptions ^ trustees, executors of estates

Conversion dealing with a chattel in a repugnant manner to the immediate right of possession...and the act renders the chattel useless to P. (Penfold Wines v Elliot) Sadcas v Professional Finance -> no conversion as the mere possession not sufficient, and there was no injury to property to render it impossible to return or claim title to it.

Torts Week 2

Fault element is intent: to deal with chattel will constitute intent. (Union Transport v British Car Auctions). Conversion is tort of strict liability. Exercising dominion over possession from another is conversion, even if intentions are to return it. (Aitken Agencies v Richardson) It is not necessary for chattel to be taken out of possession of rightful owner.