TORT II - Revision August 2023

Exam :
1. Strict liability and Private nuisance
2. Trespass to land
3. Occupier’s liability

(ENGLISH LAW)
This section contains TWO (2) Questions

Question 1

The House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc., held that

“liability under Rylands v Fletcher, as in nuisance, only arises

where the damage suffered by the claimant was foreseeable.”

Considering the decision of Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v Eastern Countries Leather Co., discuss the
position of law in England on whether foreseeability of harm/type of damage a pre-requisite of
liability in actions of private nuisance and the Rule of Rylands v Fletcher is.

How to answer :
1. Explain Cambridge case (facts , elements and held)
2. Foreseeability
3. Intro to private nuisance (is foreseeability included ?)
4. Types of injury
5. Explain Rylands v Fletcher (facts, elements and held) [ can foreseeability to be added as
a new element in the tort of strict liability ?]
6. Compare to foreseeability element being introduced in private nuisance and Rylands v
Fletcher.
7. Whether foreseeability required in strict liability required in strict liability and how
important it is on private nuisance and strict liability.
Question 2
Ronald is a young delivery man who delivers all the daily newspapers to all the houses along Park
Lane. Bryden, a retiree, who lives along Park Lane usually leaves his front gate open in the mornings,
so that Ronald can leave the day's newspaper under the front door of his house.

Yesterday, after leaving Bryden's newspaper at its usual place Ronald noticed that a lovely bird had
made its nest between the branches of Bryden's mulberry fruit tree. He put the remaining
newspapers down and climbed the tree. He was seen by Bryden who believed that Ronald was
trying to steal his mulberry fruits.

Earlier that morning, Bryden’s wife saw their adjacent neighbour, Camilla resting a ladder against
their wall and sweeping away dried leaves on her roof. The dried leaves littered their garden, but
Camilla did not bother to remove neither the ladder nor the dried leaves. Also, she has recently
erected gutters to collect rainwater which encroaches about 10inches into Bryden’s land.

Camilla’s teenage son, Allan has a YouTube channel in which he uploads pictures. Two days ago,
Bryden saw a drone hovering over the roof of his house. He believes that Camilla’s teenage son,
Allan, is trying to peep into his bedroom. A pet dog belonging to Allan has on several occasions
strayed into Bryden’s garden and messed up his garden plants and soil.

Bryden wants to know if he can take any tortious action against Ronald, Camilla, and Allan.

Ronald :
1. You must talk about who is the owner in intro and proprietary and possessory rights is
sufficient/ ownership.
2. Was it intentional and is there any interference with Bryden’s right?
3. Is there damage as such ? He does not need to prove any damage because trespass to
land is actionable per se.
Camilla :
1. Is the ladder being there an issue ? There is an intention. She left the ladder there so got
interference. Continuing trespass (Holmes v Wilson)
2. Interference : the gutter is inching 10 inches so it is Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (Airspace)
3. Civil Aviation Act (1982) [ not applicable ]

Allan :
1. The drone is flying very low.
2. Intention is to fly the drove not the intention to trespass because no will agree that they
want to trespass into someone else’s property.
3. Civil Aviation Act S.76 is there any personal injury?
 4. Pet dog – animal acts 1971. Case : League Against Cruel Sports v Scott / Ford v Seymour
– Williams (2021)
Exam :
5. What about drilling underground ?
- What is the limit? – would be trespass or not ? Below 300 m , the drilling company
doesn’t need permission from the land owner but above need permission.
- Under infrastructure act
- Make sure to understand subsoil and air space.

LAW OF TORT II (LAW61204)

SECTION B
(MALAYSIAN LAW)
This section contains two (2) Questions.

Question 3

To what extent does the duty owed by an occupier depend on the type of entrant that comes on
his premises?

Illustrate your answer with reference to decided cases.

Definition of an occupier
Application of Wheat v Lacon – China Insurance case and Chang Fah case
Actual possession
Occupier – landlord (Sri inia case )
Premises (Lau Tin Sye case)
------------------------------------------1 paragraph -------------------------------------------------

Duty owed to lawful visitors

Who is a visitor – contractual entrants
Invitees – liability to invitees factor , occupiers knowledge , unusual danger , knowledge of pf
Licensees – 3 type ( see the 3rd factor – several factors )
Children – Kinrara group estates group case
-------------------------------------------- 2 paragraph------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty owed to trespassers.
Who is a trespasser?
Previous ruling on trespass – Addie case and overruled in BRB case.
Metroplex case – subjective test
Southern Portland Cement case – considerations of humanity
Chuan Seng v Idris case – no PI when it comes to motor vehicle.
Sathu v Hawthornden – expected and foreseeable

---------------------------------------------------- 3 paragraph ----------------------------------------------------------

Duty owed to child trespassers.

Do occupiers have a higher duty towards child trespassers? - the allurement principle
Southern Portland Cement case
Lembaga Letrik Negara

-------------------------------------------------- 4 paragraph-------------------------------------------------------------

Defenses
Warnings – Ashdown v William Samuels / Staples v West Dorset case / Lembaga Letrik / Sin inuri
case ( warning is a requirement in Malaysia)
Volenti non -fit injuria – Requirements / Titchener v BRB case
--------------------------------------------- 5 paragraph -----------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion..