You are on page 1of 3

TORT (2010)- Q3: Trespass to person

Issues:1. Can Gita sue the airline under trespass to person: false imprisonment?
2. Can Gita claim damages for her emotional distress under the liability in Wilkinson v
Downton?
First issue: Can Gita sue the airline under trespass to person: false imprisonment?
Law:
Trespass to person
Definition:- an unlawful intrusion that interferes with ones body or clothes
- physical touching, causing fear or threat of harm
4 types of trespass to person: assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional
physical harm other than trespass to person
False imprisonment:
Definition
- intentional confinement or restraint of another persons freedom of movement without
authority or justification and without that persons consent
- if there is a reasonable escape route there will be no false imprisonment
3 elements of false imprisonment: intention to restrain the Pf, Dfs direct action to
restraint, complete restraint
1st element: intention to restrain the Pf
- must hv intention to restrain the Pf
- Elphinstone v Lee Leng San
- fales imprisonment cannot occur through negligence( intention to restrain is necessary)
Application:
- the authorities did not negligently lock her in the aircraft
- the airline detained her with intention because they are worried that she was a security
threat like a terrorist
- she was further detained for another 2 hours before she was allowed to leave the plane
at 5am
- thus, the element is fulfilled

2nd element: Dfs direct action to restraint


- the confinement is caused as a consequence of Dfs direct action to restrain Pf
- Harnett v Bond
- the court held that when the person told the Pf to stay and wait, it was false
imprisonment. Psychological force is enough.
Application:
Gita was not allowed to leave the plane by the airline. Her confinement was a
consequence of the airlines direct action to restrain Gita. They told her to stay on the
plane while waiting for the investigation to ensure that she is safe to the country. Thus,
she was detained till 5am. The element was fulfilled.
3rd element: complete restraint
- no means of escape
- Bird v Jones
- no false imprisonment because he was able to use another side of the street
- knowledge of the Pf that she was falsely imprisoned is not required (Meering v Graham
White Aviation)
- contract: if the Pf enters a premises under a contract he cannot later sue for false
imprisonment
- unlawful restraint by authority amounts to false imprisonment (Abd Malek v Borhan)
Application:
- Gita was completely restraint on the plane because she had no means of escape from the
plane or the airport
- this element is fulfilled
Conclusion:
- Gita can sue the airline for false imprisonment as the 3 elements have been fulfilled.
2nd issue: Can Gita claim damages for her emotional distress under the liability in
Wilkinson v Downton?
Law
Principle in Wilkinson v Downton
- FOC- as a practical joke, the Df told the Pf that her husband was badly injured in an
accident. The Pf got a violent shock and it affected her nervous system resulting in weeks
of incapacity and suffering.

- the court held that the Df was liable as he had intentionally performed the act which
caused harm to the Pf.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- the Df has deliberately sought to cause psychological harm to the Pf through outrageous
conduct
4 elements under the principle in Wilkinson v Downton
1. Positive act or statement: x omission
2. Intention to commit the act- deliberate and malice
3. The act is outrageous in nature, causing danger or suffering which is foreseen to
happen to the Pf
4. Damage to the Pf- psychological harm- actual damage must be proven
Cases applied Wilkinson v Downton
1. Janvier v Sweeney
2. Khorasandjian v Bush
Application
- there was a positive act from the airline to detain her
- the airline had the intention to detain her
- the detention is outrageous, causing her to fear that she would be taken somewhere for
interrogation
- it could cause damage to the Pf
- however, Gita claimed that she was suffering from emotional distress.
- It has to be proven by a medical report because the Wilkinson v Downton does not
provide a remedy for distress which does not amount to psychiatric injury.

You might also like