INTENTIONAL TORTS
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
Assault is the threat of the application of force, where battery is the infliction of force.
Collins v Wilcock
BATTERY
Definition:
Cole v Turner (1704) “The least touching of another in anger is battery” but “if two or more
meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the
other gently, it is no battery” [per Holt CJ].
Collins v Wilcock: not necessary in anger. conduct beyond what is generally acceptable in
everyday life.
o ‘an assault is an act which causes C to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on
another person’. In that sense the torts are parasitic upon each other and protect
the integrity of C’s person. However an assault may occur without battery occurring
and a battery may occur without any assault.’
1. Direct application of force (i.e. contact) by D against C
Infliction of force must be direct; deliberate, physical and hostile (i.e. lacked C’s consent) Mulheron -
in modern parlance hostility refers to D touching C without consent whether express or implied
o Only actions trigger battery not omissions - Innes v. Wylie (1844)
o Collins v. Wilcock [1984] - the test must be whether the physical contact … has in the
circumstances gone beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct and the answer to that
question will depend upon the facts of the particular case’ (Goff LJ)
o Application can be short-lived, and still be a battery:
Touching D’s hand Wainwright v Home Office Strip search, V touched inappropriately by
officer
Collins v Wilcock Taking hold of someone’s arm, when C tried to walk away
Hitting C’s horse, upsetting the horse and causing C to fall off Per Buxton LJ in Wainwright v
Home office
o Did not constitute direct application of force
o Digging hole in ground, C falls in Dictum in R v Clarence
o Putting sulphuric acid in a hand-dryer to hide it, C hits on switch and acid flew out DPP v
K
For battery to occur, D’s act must be deliberate and without consent
o ‘applying force’ overstates the position- does not require violence.
o F v West Berkshire HA (referring to surgical treatment) ‘any touching of another’s body is, in
the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass
o any level of force is sufficient to trigger tort of battery - Forde v. Skinner (1830) – cutting C’s
hair without permission.
o Cole v. Turner (1704) – ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery’
Hostility can encompass a lot of things- malice, ill-will, anger, threatening conduct, or touching C
with unfriendly word.
o These days is just D touching C without consent
pg. 1
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
Assault is the threat of the application of force, where battery is the infliction of force.
Collins v Wilcock
BATTERY
Definition:
Cole v Turner (1704) “The least touching of another in anger is battery” but “if two or more
meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the
other gently, it is no battery” [per Holt CJ].
Collins v Wilcock: not necessary in anger. conduct beyond what is generally acceptable in
everyday life.
o ‘an assault is an act which causes C to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on
another person’. In that sense the torts are parasitic upon each other and protect
the integrity of C’s person. However an assault may occur without battery occurring
and a battery may occur without any assault.’
1. Direct application of force (i.e. contact) by D against C
Infliction of force must be direct; deliberate, physical and hostile (i.e. lacked C’s consent) Mulheron -
in modern parlance hostility refers to D touching C without consent whether express or implied
o Only actions trigger battery not omissions - Innes v. Wylie (1844)
o Collins v. Wilcock [1984] - the test must be whether the physical contact … has in the
circumstances gone beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct and the answer to that
question will depend upon the facts of the particular case’ (Goff LJ)
o Application can be short-lived, and still be a battery:
Touching D’s hand Wainwright v Home Office Strip search, V touched inappropriately by
officer
Collins v Wilcock Taking hold of someone’s arm, when C tried to walk away
Hitting C’s horse, upsetting the horse and causing C to fall off Per Buxton LJ in Wainwright v
Home office
o Did not constitute direct application of force
o Digging hole in ground, C falls in Dictum in R v Clarence
o Putting sulphuric acid in a hand-dryer to hide it, C hits on switch and acid flew out DPP v
K
For battery to occur, D’s act must be deliberate and without consent
o ‘applying force’ overstates the position- does not require violence.
o F v West Berkshire HA (referring to surgical treatment) ‘any touching of another’s body is, in
the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass
o any level of force is sufficient to trigger tort of battery - Forde v. Skinner (1830) – cutting C’s
hair without permission.
o Cole v. Turner (1704) – ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery’
Hostility can encompass a lot of things- malice, ill-will, anger, threatening conduct, or touching C
with unfriendly word.
o These days is just D touching C without consent
pg. 1
