Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:27

From: Steve Hedley

Subject: Interference with property

Adam: that is an interesting suggestion, and the closest I can come to imposing liability, but I am not convinced. In Welton the result would have been precisely the same if the advice had come from a lay person "if you want to comply with the health and safety rules you must do X, Y and Z". But for the absence of consideration, there would have been a contract. We cannot say that in this case. The authorities weren't gratuitously undertaking to do anything, whether provide advice or anything else. They just refused a licence, when as a matter of public law they should not have done.

Not sure I find this convincing - it's a bit of a euphemism to describe the threats made in Welton as "advice", and no doubt the claimants went along with it not out of any respect for the threatener's legal knowledge, but because it seemed the best way of not ending up before the courts. In what sense was he "gratuitously undertaking" anything? – unless you want to say that anyone who does anything is "gratuitously undertaking" that they have a right to do it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Stevens
Sent: 19 November 2008 12:00
To: Sarah Green
Cc: Andrew Tettenborn; Andrew Botterell
Subject: RE: interference with property

Sarah: conversion doesn't require an unlawful act of dispossession, but it does require that you intend to exercise a liberty with respect to the thing that you don't have. In both Howard E Perry v BRB and Oakley v Lyster the plaintiff's goods were (lawfully) on the defendant's premises, and the defendant was denying the plaintiff access to them: which the defendant had no right to do. This interfered with the plaintiff's right to possess. That is a long way from this case where there is no denial by the defendant of the plaintiff's right to possession.

Michael asked "Having allowed me onto your land to play with the football, how did you stop me just picking up the ball and marching off your land?"

It would be a trespass to walk off the land with the ball. The football owner has a (bare) licence to enter the land, but it is subject to the condition that he doesn't leave the land with the ball. If he does, he falls outside of the terms of the licence and commits trespass. If there was a passing judge, you could get an injunction.

Adam: that is an interesting suggestion, and the closest I can come to imposing liability, but I am not convinced. In Welton the result would have been precisely the same if the advice had come from a lay person "if you want to comply with the health and safety rules you must do X, Y and Z". But for the absence of consideration, there would have been a contract. We cannot say that in this case. The authorities weren't gratuitously undertaking to do anything, whether provide advice or anything else. They just refused a licence, when as a matter of public law they should not have done.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>