TRESPASS TO GOODS
• Own rights in relation to goods > tort protects this
• Involves direct interference with possession of goods
• Can arise from
A) damage
B) taking the possession of another
• First you mst examine the nature of the interference. It must be directly
caused by D for you to bring a cause of action
Directness requirement
• More general tort – there are other more specific ones
- Example: If you posion the feed for a horse who then consumes it, you
have not trespassed against the horse. You’ve trespassed in relation to
the feed. Trespassing to the horse would be directly giving it to it.
McDonagh v West of Ireland Fisheries
D moved P’s boat but they couldn’t prove that it was the D who directly caused
this alleged dmagae.
Farrell v Min. For AG.
Ministerial order…
ACTIONABLE PER SE
Kirk v Gregory
Interference will suffice. You must show that the damage was either
intentional or negligent.
Hastings v ESB 1965
D caused damage to P’s cable. They were aware of its existence and this
knowledge was sufficient to hold them liable in trespass. The court endorsed
fowler v lanning and national coal board v Evans.
The plaintiff’s interest
• In order for action to succeed, at time of interference, P must be in
actual possession >
- right to immediate access
- actual have them
, • Mental state and motive irrelevant
• Even if D think the goods are genuinely his, it will still be trespass > strict
liability > you don’t aks how or why. Once there is an interference there,
lability is triggered.
DETINUE
• Specific
• Usually, D is requested to do deliver goods and refuses to do so.
• Central to detinue, is the D’s possession of the P’s goods being
- Adverse to P’s rights
• Requires P to make a demand
Cullen, Allen & C v Barclay
D failed to return potato sacks in breach of contract. Despite the fact there
was a
- Correspondence = insufficient to a demand
- Express terms in a contract not enough to imply demand
REQUIRES:
➢ Demand
➢ Subsequent to demand, there must be a refusal or neglect to return
goods
➢ Demand MUST be brought to demand of the D
➢ May be reasonable for D to retain possession of the goods to invetiagte
the title
Poole v Burns
Involved a horse which the D auctioneer retained to make inquiries as to the
true ownership of the goods (horse) in question. Court said for a reasonable
time, lawful authority to investigate. Neverthelss,
- 5 weeks to inquire = too long
Bailees and Finders
1) BAILEE
• Someone who has temporary and lawful possession of goods even if
they don’t own them
• They still have right to possession at a given time
• Own rights in relation to goods > tort protects this
• Involves direct interference with possession of goods
• Can arise from
A) damage
B) taking the possession of another
• First you mst examine the nature of the interference. It must be directly
caused by D for you to bring a cause of action
Directness requirement
• More general tort – there are other more specific ones
- Example: If you posion the feed for a horse who then consumes it, you
have not trespassed against the horse. You’ve trespassed in relation to
the feed. Trespassing to the horse would be directly giving it to it.
McDonagh v West of Ireland Fisheries
D moved P’s boat but they couldn’t prove that it was the D who directly caused
this alleged dmagae.
Farrell v Min. For AG.
Ministerial order…
ACTIONABLE PER SE
Kirk v Gregory
Interference will suffice. You must show that the damage was either
intentional or negligent.
Hastings v ESB 1965
D caused damage to P’s cable. They were aware of its existence and this
knowledge was sufficient to hold them liable in trespass. The court endorsed
fowler v lanning and national coal board v Evans.
The plaintiff’s interest
• In order for action to succeed, at time of interference, P must be in
actual possession >
- right to immediate access
- actual have them
, • Mental state and motive irrelevant
• Even if D think the goods are genuinely his, it will still be trespass > strict
liability > you don’t aks how or why. Once there is an interference there,
lability is triggered.
DETINUE
• Specific
• Usually, D is requested to do deliver goods and refuses to do so.
• Central to detinue, is the D’s possession of the P’s goods being
- Adverse to P’s rights
• Requires P to make a demand
Cullen, Allen & C v Barclay
D failed to return potato sacks in breach of contract. Despite the fact there
was a
- Correspondence = insufficient to a demand
- Express terms in a contract not enough to imply demand
REQUIRES:
➢ Demand
➢ Subsequent to demand, there must be a refusal or neglect to return
goods
➢ Demand MUST be brought to demand of the D
➢ May be reasonable for D to retain possession of the goods to invetiagte
the title
Poole v Burns
Involved a horse which the D auctioneer retained to make inquiries as to the
true ownership of the goods (horse) in question. Court said for a reasonable
time, lawful authority to investigate. Neverthelss,
- 5 weeks to inquire = too long
Bailees and Finders
1) BAILEE
• Someone who has temporary and lawful possession of goods even if
they don’t own them
• They still have right to possession at a given time
