DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL STUDIES

CENTRE FOR FOUNDATION STUDIES, IIUM

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL SKILLS (LSC0134)

SEMESTER II, 2022/2023

ASSIGNMENT 2: PROBLEM SOLVING

TOPICS : READING SKILLS & PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS

LEGAL OPINION - 10%

(PROBLEM 3)

NAME NURAISHA HIDAYAH BINTI SUZILAN

MATRICS NO 224313

SECTION 308

INSTRUCTOR’S NAME SIR MUHAMMAD RIDHWAN BIN SALEH

Introduction
Based on Problem 3, the type of legal proceeding is Civil law. The parties to the legal
proceeding are Farhan as the plaintiff, and Mia as the defendant. The area of law that is
involved in the case is Tort Law, specifically under Trespass to Land.

( I ) Identification of Legal Issues

Whether Mia’s action constitutes trespass to land when she broke into Farhan's garden to put
out the fire and whether Farhan can successfully seek compensation for the damage made by
Mia to his garden?

( R ) Identification of Relevant Rules

Trespass to land can be simply defined with a person who directly enters upon another’s land
without permission, or remains upon the land, or projects any object upon the land. It is
actionable per se, meaning that the claimant need not have to prove that he/she suffered loss
or damage in order to take the case to court. There are three elements for this trespass. First,
the claim must involve land which not only includes the ground itself, but also the things
under it, any building that is fixed to the surface, and also airspace above as is needed for the
normal use and enjoyment of the land and the structures on it. Second, the land must be in the
claimant’s possession. The claimant need not own the land, but must be in possession of it
and the possession here means the right to exclude others from the land. The possession must
be immediate, meaning that it must exist at the time the trespass is committed. Third, the
interference must be direct and physical to the claimant’s land.

The first principle is from the case of Cope v. Sharpe [1910]. In this case, a fire broke out at
the claimant’s land. In order to stop the fire from spreading to the adjoining land, the
defendant’s servant had entered into claimant’s land without his permission and set a fire to a
strip of land on the claimant’s property. However, the claimant's servant then managed to put
off the fire and it turned out that the action made by defendants’s servant earlier was
unnecessary. The claimant then brought the case for trespass to land. It was held that there
was an imminent danger to the defendant’s property at the time of the defendant's servants'
action and it was necessary to do so since the act was intended to prevent greater harm.
Hence, the defendant was held not liable for trespass. The second case is from Rigby and
Anor v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985]. In this case, an intruder who was a
psychopath, broke into the claimant’s gunsmiths shop (a business that makes, sells, and
repairs guns). The intruder then spread an inflammable powder from a tin that he found and
used the guns from the shop to shoot inside and out of the premises. The police, which is the
defendant, failed to persuade him to come out from the premises. The defendant then fired a
CS gas canister (a gas that causes painful breathing and tears, used by the army or police to
control a person or crowd in a violent situation) into the shop in order to arrest the intruder.
The canister then started a big fire in the premises and brought serious damage to the shop.
The claimant then seeks damages from the defendant for their losses as well as trespass in
firing the CS gas canister into his premises. It was held that the defendant was not liable for
the trespass because it is necessary to prevent the intruder from acting more violently and
causing bigger harm to the community nearby.

From both of the decided cases, we can see the similarity in the material facts and the held
that both defendants were found not liable for the trespass although they did commit the
trespass with using the defence of necessity. This defence applies where a defendant
intentionally causes damage or acts in an unlawful way because by doing that, it can prevent
a greater harm to other person, property, or the community.

( A ) Application of the rules to the legal issue

Trespass to land is actionable per se as stated earlier and in this problem, Farhan can prove
that Mia has directly interfered with his garden because she took Farhan’s water hose and
sprayed the water everywhere without his permission. Not only that, there are also proofs of
damages suffered by Farhan when Mia trampled over Farhan’s rare strawberry plants and
also by breaking some of the plant pots. All the elements for the trespass to land have been
successfully proven because first, there is a land which in the problem, is the garden as well
as other objects on that garden such as the water hose and the strawberry plants. Second, the
land is certainly in Farhan’s possession and it is immediate, since the garden is still in his
possession at the time the trespass was committed. Third, the interference made by Mia was
obviously direct and physical because it involved her in stepping onto Farhan’s garden and
touching his properties on that land.

Both cases, Cope v. Sharpe [1910] and Rigby and Anor v. Chief Constable of
Northamptonshire [1985] can be applied in this problem because of the similarities in their
material facts. Relating to the first case, both situations involve a fire that arose from the
claimant’s land. In our problem 3, a fire broke out from Farhan’s barbecue pit that was placed
on his land. Then, it involved the acts of other parties entering the claimant’s land without
their permission in order to stop the fire from getting worse. In the case, the defendant’s
servant had entered into claimant’s land without permission and set a fire to a strip of land on
the claimant’s property while in our present problem, Mia had entered into Farhan’s land
without permission and took his water hose to spray the water onto the fire. These acts are
done intentionally by both of them, Sharpe’s servant and Mia, to put off the fire and to
prevent the fire from spreading to the adjoining lands and damaging their properties and the
others because both of them are neighbours with the claimants, Cope and Farhan. Besides,
relating to the second case, there is a serious harm that made the police using a CS gas
canister to stop the psychopath from behaving more violently and causing harm to others
nearby. The danger caused by the psychopath is the same as the fire that made both the police
and Mia need to stop them from getting worse. By looking at the both cases’ judgements that
the defendants was held not liable for the trespass by using defence of necessity, this can be
applied to our problem and thus, it is safe to say that Mia is most likely be held not liable for
the trespass and Farhan might not be able to seek compensation from Mia.

In order to raise the defence of necessity, I do think Mia is able to prove all the four things
that are needed. First, Mia reasonably believed that her actions were necessary to prevent the
sudden harm since she used the water hose to put off the fire. By logically thinking, any
reasonable person would feel the panic and emergency of this situation. Second, Mia used
Farhan’s water hose because there were no other practical ways and the hose was clearly easy
to grab and closer to the source of fire. Third, Mia did not cause the fire in the first place
because she noticed it only when she was walking towards her car. Lastly, the damage caused
by Mia was definitely lesser than the harm that would have been caused by the flames that
may be damaging the whole garden and other neighbouring houses.

( C ) Conclusion
Mia’s actions when she broke into Farhan's garden to put out the fire does constitute trespass
to land because she entered without Farhan’s permission and it fulfilled all three elements of
trespass to land. However, based on the held of the two referred cases, Farhan might not be
able to successfully seek compensation for the damage made by Mia to his garden because
the acts made by Mia are intended to prevent greater harm and she can raise the defence of
necessity since she can prove all the four elements that need to be proven.
References

1. Harpwood, V. (2009). Modern Tort Law (7th ed.). Routledge.

2. Quinn, F., & Elliot, C. (2019). Elliot and Quinn's Tort Law (12th ed.). Pearson.
3. Cope v. Sharpe [1910] 1 K.B. 168
4. Rigby and Anor v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242