LAW OF TORTS

Intentional Interference with the Person

• Trespass to the person involves direct interference with a
person’s body or liberty.

• Origins in trespass vi et armis (with force and arms) and

contra pacem (against the kings peace)

• It includes assault, battery and false imprisonment.

• Distinction between trespass vi et armis and trespass on the

case: intention

INTENTION: the defendant must intend the acts that constitute

the tort in the case of battery the defendant must intend the
physical act and for assault he defendant must intend the act
that causes apprehension of an imminent infliction of force.
Wilson v Pringle (1987) QB 237
 Lord Denning stated ‘ the truth is that the distinction between
trespass and case is obsolete instead of dividing actions into
trespass (direct damage or case consequential damage, we
divide the causes of action now according as the defendant did
the injury intentionally or unintentionally. If one man intentionally
applies force directly to another the plaintiff has a cause of
action in assault and battery or if you so please trespass to the
person. The least touching of another in anger is battery if he
does not inflict injury intentionally, the plaintiff has no cause of
action in trespass his only cause of action is in negligence and
then only on proof of want of reasonable care. Letang v Cooper
1965 QB 232
Battery
• Battery requires the unlawful touching of another: An intentional
and offensive touching of another without lawful justification.
Black’s Law Dictionary 8th ed
• Battery is the unlawful beating of another. The least touching of
another person wilfully or in anger is battery; for the law cannot
draw the lines between different degrees of violence and therefore
totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it every mans person
being sacred and no other having a right to meddle with it in any
the slightest manner… Blackstones Vol III
• The tort of battery is committed by the intentional application of
force to another by direct means or through an unwelcome
physical contact irrespective of whether intent to harm or hostility is
involved.
Elements of Battery
• Direct act of defendant: the defendants conduct must
have caused the basis of the plaintiffs complaint and for
battery there must be physical contact. Scott v Shepherd
(1773) 95 E.R 1124 Miller v AG (1975) 2 G.L.R 31 at 39
Covell v Laming (1808) 170 E.R 103 at 1035

• Leanne v Bray (1803) 102 E. R 724 : Lord Ellenborough

stated ‘where the immediate act itself occasions a
prejudice or is an injury to the plaintiffs person or lands,
trespass vi et armis will lie where the act is not itself an
injury however its consequences are injurious trespass
will not lie but trespass on the case.’
Elements of Battery
• The act complained of must be voluntary Gibbons v Pepper (1695)
91 E.R 922
• The plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted intentionally that
is either deliberately or through inadvertence or recklessness. In
Wilson v Pringle (1987) 1 QB 237 Stanley v Powell (1891) 1 QB 86
Fowler v Lanning (1959) 1 QB 426

Holmes v Mather (1875) 10 Exch. 261 Per Bramwell B: ‘if the act that
does an injury is an act of direct force vi et armis trespass is the proper
remedy if there is any remedy at all. Where the act is wrongful either
as being willful or as being the result of negligence …. Where the act is
not wrongful for either of these reasons no action is maintainable,
though trespass would be the proper form of action if it were wrongful.’
Elements of Battery
• There must be physical contact with the person of the plaintiff
whether person to person or through an instrument. R v Cotesworth
(1704) 6 Mod. 172 Dumbbell v Roberts (1944) 1 ALL . E.R 330
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) 1 QB 439 Cole v
Turner (1704) 6 Mod Rep .149. Pursell v Horn (1838) 112 ER 966
Elements of Battery
• The plaintiff must prove he or she did not consent to the
contact either expressly or presumed consent see Nash v
Sheen
Cole v Turner Holt CJ held ‘ if two or more meet in a narrow
passage and without any violence or design of harm one
touches the other gently, no battery but if one in a desire to
gain advantage shoves another aside in an inordinate and
violent manner this is a trespass’
• Privileged contact/ lawful authority/ generally acceptable
in the ordinary conduct of everyday life
Assault
• The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to
have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive
contact ; the act of putting another person in reasonable fear or
apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act
amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery. Black’s Law
Dictionary 8th ed
• Provides relief for emotional disturbance unaccompanied by
external physical contact.
• requires a fear of imminent physical contact. Read v Coker (1853)
138 E.R
• An intentional act constituting a threat to do personal violence to the
complainant with a current ability to carry out that threat.
Assault
• The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to
have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or
offensive contact ; the act of putting another person in
reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by
means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a
battery. Black’s Law Dictionary 8th ed
• Provides relief for emotional disturbance unaccompanied by
external physical contact.
• requires a fear of imminent physical contact. Read v Coker

• An intentional act constituting a threat to do personal violence

to the complainant with a current ability to carry out that threat.
Assault
• The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to
have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or
offensive contact ; the act of putting another person in
reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by
means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a
battery. Black’s Law Dictionary 8th ed
• Provides relief for emotional disturbance unaccompanied by
external physical contact.
• requires a fear of imminent physical contact. Read v Coker

• An intentional act constituting a threat to do personal violence

to the complainant with a current ability to carry out that threat.
Assault
• Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers South Wales Area (1986)
Ch. 20
• Stephen v Myers :Tindal CJ stated ‘ it is not every threat when there
is no actual personal violence that constitutes an assault there must
in all cases be means of carrying the threat into effect.’
• Blake v Barnard and contrast with R v St George Osborn v Veitch
Mortin v Shoppee
• Miller v A-G per Abban J as he then was ‘ to point a loaded revolver
at another in such a hostile manner and within shooting distance and
which conduct puts that other person in reasonable fear or
apprehension of a battery constitutes assault

• Can mere words constitute an assault? Meade v Belts Case R v

Wilson Tubervelle v Savage (1669) 86 ER 684
Assault
• Bruce v Dyer (1966) DLR 211 Ferguson J stated ‘usually
when there is no actual intention to use violence there can
be no assault. When there is no power to use violence to
the knowledge of the plaintiff there can be no assault.
There need not be in fact any actual intention or power to
use violence for it is enough if the plaintiff on reasonable
ground believes that he is in fact in danger of violence. So
if a person shakes his fist at another the person so
assaulted may strike back if he on reasonable grounds
believes that he is in danger’.
• Nsiah v Ampratwum (1963) High Court Kumasi Glover v
London and SW Rly 1897 2 QB 57 and Cobbold v Grand
(1937)