Welcome to our site ...

Trespass is as old as the legal system itself and not only covers interference with land but also infringement of other personal rights including personal property and personal security, therefore a compensation helpline can select the most appropriate area for the best chance of claiming compensation.

It developed as a result of the fact that there was no separation of criminal and civil law as there is today. Victims of wrongs had little choice than to bring an action to the court themselves.

Traditionally a trespass only occurred if it was a direct consequence of the positive act of the defendant, meaning omissions could not be covered. Trespass to the person can be committed in three ways: assault, battery and false imprisonment. All three are also represented in criminal law.

False imprisonment is committed where the defendant intentionally imposes a total restraint on the liberty and free movement of the claimant. In modern circumstances it is most usually associated with wrongful arrests and detention by the police, or by store detectives and security guards.

As the total restraint is a requirement of the tort, there will be no action if there is a reasonable means of escape available to the claimant, even if this means committing a further trespass. This was apparent in the case of Wright v Wilson (1699) in which a possible escape route was available to the claimant but it meant trespassing on the land in the ownership or possession of another. It was held that this was sufficient to prevent liability for the defendant, although this may seem unfair for a law abiding citizen who may feel conflicted at the notion of committing a trespass.

The restraint must be direct, as if it is not then an action in negligence may be available instead. This was evident in the case of Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958), in which a woman became locked in a toilet cubicle because the lock on the door jammed. This was negligence on the part of the council for the faulty lock on the door rather than a false imprisonment case.

It is possible that false imprisonment can occur without the claimant being aware of it, or even when the claimant is unconscious at the time of the false imprisonment, as suggested in the obiter dicta statement of the case of Murray v Minister of Defence. In the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation (1919) the claimant was being questioned in relation to theft from his employer. Unknown to him at the time, there were two men posted at the door as a means of preventing him from leaving, which was enough to be classed as a false imprisonment.

It will not be false imprisonment if the claimant is obliged to pay for his release, provided that there has already been a voluntary agreement to this effect. This was evident in the case of Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company (1910) in which the claimant had entered an enclosed wharf from which the ferry sailed. He was obliged to pay a penny to enter and a penny to exit at the other side. When he missed the ferry he expressed a wish to exit, but the gate manager would not allow him to leave without having paid the aforementioned penny. When the man refused he attempted to claim false imprisonment, but this was not held to be the case because of the voluntary financial agreement for release.

Similarly, there will be no false imprisonment if an employer has a legitimate expectation that his employee will stay until the end of his assigned shift and will not provide the worker with a means of leaving earlier. This was shown in the case of Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company (1915) in which miners, who were already down the mine but at the start of their shift, decided that what they were being asked to do was too dangerous and therefore asked to be taken to the surface. When the employer refused to comply with their wishes, they tried to claim false imprisonment, but the court held that there was no false imprisonment due to the fact that the men had already been contracted to stay down the mine until the end of the shift, which meant that the employer was under no obligation to use the lift until that time came.

There are also various defences available for defendants, therefore in order to ensure the maximum potential for compensation to be granted, the use of compensation helpline saves time and money as the facts of the individual case can be applied to the rules of false imprisonment.