Sufficient Act of Interference’ PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Sufficient Act of Interference’ PDF

Description

1

Name: Student Number: Statement of word count: 399 words Unit Details: Law152 Torts

Introduction It is likely the element ‘Sufficient Act of Interference’ in the tortious cause of action of trespass to land is satisfied in Mike’s scenario. Kite Fly, the defendant makes trespass to land when Kite Fly’s kites enter the presence of Mike’s (plaintiff) airspace. The element ‘Sufficient Act of Interference’ is likely to be established when at least one of Kite Fly’s kites enter Mike’s airspace. Element: ‘Sufficient Act of Interference’ (SAOI) It is likely this element is established because Kite Fly flies kites that enter Mike’s airspace ranging 5 metres to 50 metres above Mike’s roof. A sufficient act of interference is likely to be established because a trespass can occur whether the trespass is in airspace or on land. 1 Kites flown by Kite Fly enter Mike’s airspace. Graham v Kd Morris & Sons Pty Ltd [1974] Qd R 1 applies to the facts because the wind causes the kites to enter Mike’s airspace unintentionally, like the jib of the crane. The facts tell us that Mike fears a kite doing damage to his property. Mike is likely to feel ‘Nervousness and apprehension’ 2 because he fears his property being damaged by a kite flown by Kite Fly. Therefore the kite in Mike’s airspace is likely to interfere with the proper use and enjoyment of Mike’s land 3 due to Mike’s fear. Flying a kite in Mike’s airspace is likely to establish this element. In opposition it is found the element of ‘Sufficient Act of Interference’ unestablished as Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General LTD [1978] 1 QB 479 does not specify the height to cause a SAOI. The specific height that amounts to a SAOI is unclear. This element will be unestablished if Kite Fly have the same right to the airspace as Mike. It is unclear what height of a kite satisfies this element. Conclusion 1 Davies v Bennison (1927) 22 Tas LR 52. 2 Graham v Kd Morris & Sons Pty Ltd [1974] Qd R 1 [4]. 3 Graham v Kd Morris & Sons Pty Ltd [1974] Qd R 1 [4].

2

It is likely the element of ‘Sufficient Act of Interference’ is established because Mike fears a kite damaging his property, however it is unclear what specific height of a kite establishes this element. It is likely that Mike’s fear of damage stops him from proper ‘use and enjoyment of the land’ therefore a SAOI is probably established....