Cambridge Syllabus Notes

Torts Affecting Land (Cambridge A‑Level Law 9084)

This unit covers the torts required by the Cambridge International AS & A Level Law syllabus (section 4). It is organised to follow the syllabus order, includes the statutory framework, the elements that must be proved, the parties who may sue or be sued, the full range of defences, leading authorities and the principal remedies.

1. Negligence (Syllabus 4.1)

1.1 Elements of the Claim

Duty of care
- Neighbour principle – Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
- Caparo test (three‑part test): foreseeability, proximity and it being fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
- Special categories – professionals, children, occupiers, manufacturers, etc.
Standard of care
- Reasonable person standard (objective).
- Children – standard of a child of the claimant’s age, intelligence and experience (Brown v Board of Governors of St Helens [1965] 1 WLR 1259).
- Professionals – professional standard of care (Bolam test) (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582).
Breach of duty
- Failure to meet the standard of care; judged by the “reasonable person” test.
Causation
- Factual causation – “but for” test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428).
- Legal causation – remoteness (reasonable foreseeability) (Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617).
Damage
- Compensable loss – personal injury, property damage, pure economic loss (only in limited circumstances).

1.2 Defences (Syllabus 4.4)

Volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk).
Contributory negligence – reduction of damages (Statutory Cap. 17 (England) – 25 % to 75 %).
Inevitable accident – the accident could not have been avoided.
Statutory authority or statutory defence.

1.3 Remedies

Damages – compensatory (special & general damages), exemplary (in limited cases).
Injunctions – prohibitory or mandatory where damages are inadequate.

1.4 Leading Cases (summary table)

Case	Key Issue	Holding	Principle
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562	Neighbour principle	Established modern duty of care	One must take reasonable care of persons so closely and directly affected by one’s act.
Caparo v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605	Caparo three‑part test	Duty of care requires foreseeability, proximity and fairness	Statutory‑like test for novel duties.
Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967) 1 AC 617	Remoteness of damage	Liability limited to reasonably foreseeable damage	Introduced the “reasonable foreseeability” test for legal causation.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582	Professional standard of care	Defendant not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion	Sets the “Bolam test” for professional negligence.

2. Torts Affecting Land (Syllabus 4.2)

2.1 Occupiers’ Liability

2.1.1 Duties to Lawful Visitors – Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Who is an occupier? Anyone who has sufficient control over premises – owner, tenant, licensee, manager (Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 745).
Statutory duty – take reasonable steps to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are invited.
Special duties
- Children – higher standard where premises are likely to be used by children (Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1245).
- Trade‑visitors (contractors, professionals) – duty to warn of or remedy a danger that the occupier knows about and that the visitor could not be expected to discover (Roles v Nathan [1963] 2 QB 862).
Liability for independent contractors – occupier liable if he fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the contractor’s competence or to supervise the work (British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877).
Defences (statutory)
- Voluntary assumption of risk.
- Warning that is sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice.
- Statutory authority – where a statute expressly permits the condition.
Remedies
- Damages – compensation for personal injury or loss.
- Injunction – rare, only where a continuing dangerous practice threatens future visitors.

2.1.2 Duties to Unlawful Visitors – Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Occupier must take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to avoid injury to a person who enters without permission.
The duty is limited – no requirement to take steps that would be unreasonable (e.g., to guard against a hidden danger that could not be anticipated).
Defences are the same as under the 1957 Act but are applied more restrictively because of the visitor’s unlawful status.
Remedies are identical to those for lawful visitors.

2.2 Trespass to Land (Law of Property Act 1925 s 1)

2.2.1 Elements

Claimant has a proprietary interest (owner, leaseholder or exclusive possessor).
Direct physical invasion of land – by a person, animal or an object.
Intent to enter (or knowledge that entry is substantially certain). No intention to cause damage is required.
Absence of lawful justification or consent.

2.2.2 Continuing Trespass (Syllabus 4.2.4)

A single act that results in a lasting intrusion (e.g., a fence, buried pipe, abandoned vehicle) is a “continuing trespass”.
Action may be brought per se – the claimant need not prove actual damage, only that the interference persists.
Leading case: Barrett v IBC Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1589 (concrete slab left on neighbour’s garden).

2.2.3 Defences

Consent (express or implied).
Statutory authority – where a statute expressly authorises the entry.
Claimant’s own unlawful act (e.g., self‑help that creates a new trespass).

2.2.4 Remedies

Damages – compensatory (actual loss) or nominal where only the right is infringed.
Injunction – to prevent further entry or to require removal of the intrusion.
Restitutionary orders – rare, may require restoration of the land to its original state.

2.2.5 Leading Cases (summary table)

Case	Facts	Holding	Key Principle
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1025	Government agents entered plaintiff’s home without a warrant.	Defendants liable for trespass.	Any unauthorized entry is a trespass, irrespective of motive.
Williams v Bayley (1866) LR 1 HL 200	Defendant’s horse strayed onto plaintiff’s land.	Owner of the horse liable for trespass.	Animals can constitute a trespass when they enter land.
Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd (1978) 1 WLR 967	Photographs taken from an aircraft 150 ft over a house.	No trespass – airspace above 50 ft is not land.	Defines the vertical limits of land ownership.
Barrett v IBC Ltd (2001) EWCA Civ 1589	Concrete slab left on neighbour’s garden after building works.	Held as a continuing trespass.	Liability for ongoing physical intrusion.

2.3 Private Nuisance (Syllabus 4.2.2)

2.3.1 Definition

Unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land in which the claimant has a proprietary interest (Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852).

2.3.2 Parties

Claimant – must have a proprietary interest (owner, leaseholder, exclusive possessor).
Defendant – the person who creates the interference, the occupier of the land where it originates, or a landlord who authorises it (Stansbie v Troman (1948) 2 KB 48).

2.3.3 Elements (Syllabus 4.2.2)

Existence of a proprietary interest.
Unreasonable interference – must be substantial and continuous or repeated (single, fleeting interferences are usually not actionable).
Interference with either the use (e.g., loss of a right to build) or the enjoyment (e.g., loss of peace and quiet) of the land.
Defendant’s conduct is intentional or negligent.

2.3.4 Factors Courts Consider (to decide “unreasonable”)

Locality – what is normal in the area? Rural areas tolerate more noise than urban ones (Sturges v Bridgman).
Duration & frequency – a one‑off event is less likely to be actionable than a persistent problem (Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 609).
Sensitivity of the claimant – the claimant must not be unusually sensitive; the test is that of a reasonable person (Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd (1999) 2 AC 39).
Malice or spite – may increase damages (Christie v Davey [1976] QB 371).

2.3.5 Defences (Syllabus 4.2.2)

Prescription – continuous interference for 20 years may become lawful (Prescription Act 1832).
Statutory authority – where a statute expressly authorises the activity.
Consent – express or implied consent of the claimant.

2.3.6 Remedies

Damages – compensatory for loss of enjoyment, loss of value, or cost of mitigation.
Injunction – prohibitory or mandatory to stop the nuisance.
Abatement – plaintiff may self‑help (e.g., remove an encroaching structure) if reasonable and without causing further damage.

2.3.7 Leading Cases (summary table)

Case	Facts	Holding	Key Principle
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852	Doctor complained about confectioner’s noisy machinery next to his consulting rooms.	Defendant liable for nuisance.	Established the “reasonable use” test; rejected “coming to the nuisance”.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 609	Residents claimed a new skyscraper interfered with TV reception.	No nuisance – interference not substantial and claimants lacked a proprietary interest in the signal.	Clarified the need for a proprietary interest and the “substantial interference” threshold.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) AC 114	Groundwater contaminated by tannery chemicals.	Defendant liable for nuisance.	Extended nuisance to non‑physical, environmental harms; highlighted foreseeability.
Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd (2014) EWCA Civ 1315	Noise from a private hunting ground disturbed a neighbouring farmer’s livestock.	Defendant liable for nuisance.	Modern application of locality and reasonableness factors.

2.4 Rylands v Fletcher – Strict Liability for Dangerous Things (Syllabus 4.2.3)

2.4.1 Definition & Source

Strict liability rule: a person who, for a non‑natural use of land, brings onto that land something likely to cause damage if it escapes, is liable for any damage caused by its escape (Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 5 HL 303). The rule is now a part of common law and is reflected in the case law rather than in statute.

2.4.2 Conditions of Liability

Non‑natural use of land – use is extraordinary or unusual for the type of land (e.g., a reservoir, a chemical store).
The thing brought onto the land is dangerous – likely to cause damage if it escapes.
The dangerous thing actually escapes from the defendant’s land.
Damage is suffered by the claimant.

2.4.3 Nature of the Liability

Strict (fault‑independent) liability – no need to prove negligence.
Overlap with private nuisance – the same facts may give rise to both claims; claimant may elect the more advantageous cause of action (Cambridge Water).

2.4.4 Defences (Syllabus 4.2.3)

Act of God – a natural event that could not have been foreseen or prevented.
Act of a third party – the escape is caused by an independent act of another person.
Consent of the claimant – where the claimant has expressly agreed to the risk.
Statutory authority – where a statute expressly permits the activity.

2.4.5 Remedies

Compensatory damages – full compensation for loss caused by the escape.
Injunction – exceptional; generally not granted because the tort is based on a single escape rather than ongoing conduct.

2.4.6 Leading Cases (summary table)

Case	Facts	Holding	Key Principle
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 5 HL 303	Defendant built a reservoir; it burst and flooded plaintiff’s coal mine.	Defendant strictly liable.	Established modern rule of strict liability for escape of dangerous things.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) AC 114	Contaminated chemicals escaped from the defendant’s tannery, polluting groundwater.	Liability upheld, but the House of Lords introduced a foreseeability limitation.	Liability now requires that the type of damage be reasonably foreseeable.
Read v J. S. Clegg Ltd (1995) 1 All ER 1014	Oil stored in a large tank ruptured because of a manufacturing defect.	Defendant liable under Rylands despite the defect being a “fault”.	Confirmed that the rule applies even where the escape is caused by a defect in the dangerous thing.

3. Torts Affecting the Person (Syllabus 4.3)

3.1 Assault

Elements
1. An act which creates an apprehension in the claimant of immediate and unlawful personal violence.
2. Apprehension must be of immediate harm – not a future threat.
3. Defendant’s act must be intentional or reckless as to the claimant’s apprehension.
Defences – consent, self‑defence, necessity, statutory authority.
Remedies – damages (general and, in some cases, exemplary); injunctions are rare.
Leading case – R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 (assault can be committed without physical contact).

3.2 Battery

Elements
1. Direct and intentional application of force to the claimant’s person.
2. Force may be minimal (e.g., a light touch) and need not cause injury.
3. Defendant must intend the application of force or be reckless as to its occurrence.
Defences – consent (including lawful medical treatment), self‑defence, necessity, statutory authority.
Remedies – damages (general, special, and, where appropriate, exemplary); injunctions in cases of repeated unlawful contact.
Leading case – G v DPP [2000] 1 WLR 1650 (contact without consent is battery).

3.3 False Imprisonment

Elements
1. Total restraint of the claimant’s liberty of movement.
2. Restraint must be intentional.
3. There must be no lawful authority for the restraint.
Defences – lawful authority (e.g., police power), consent, necessity.
Remedies – damages (including loss of earnings and mental distress); injunctions to prevent further unlawful detention.
Leading case – Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 (restraint by a gate).

4. General Defences and Remedies in Tort (Syllabus 4.4)

4.1 Defences

Volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) – claimant must have appreciated the risk and freely consented.
Contributory negligence – damages reduced in proportion to claimant’s fault (Statutory 25 %–75 %).
Inevitable accident – the accident could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care.
Consent – express or implied consent to the act.
Statutory authority / statutory defence – where a statute expressly authorises the conduct (e.g., certain railway works).
Prescription – for private nuisance, 20 years continuous use may become lawful (Prescription Act 1832).
Act of God / force majeure – natural events beyond human control.
Act of a third party – where the defendant’s liability is broken by an intervening act.

4.2 Remedies

Damages
- Compensatory – special (quantifiable) and general (pain & suffering, loss of amenity).
- Exemplary (punitive) – awarded only where the defendant’s conduct is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Injunctions – prohibitory (stop the act) or mandatory (require the act).
Abatement – plaintiff may remove the nuisance himself, provided it is reasonable and does not cause further damage.
Restitutionary orders – require the defendant to restore the claimant’s position (rare).
Damages in lieu of injunction – where an injunction is not appropriate, the court may award a lump sum reflecting the value of the injunction.

5. Comparative Overview of Land‑Based Torts

Tort	Key Duty / Rule	Nature of Liability	Typical Defences	Principal Remedies
Occupiers’ Liability (Lawful Visitor)	Reasonable steps to ensure safety for the purpose invited (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957).	Fault‑based – breach of statutory duty.	Volenti, sufficient warning, statutory authority.	Damages, occasional injunction.
Occupiers’ Liability (Unlawful Visitor)	Reasonable care in the circumstances (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984).	Fault‑based – limited duty.	Volenti, warning, statutory authority (more restrictive).	Damages, injunction (rare).
Trespass to Land	Direct, intentional or reckless physical entry without consent.	Fault‑based – intent to enter required.	Consent, statutory authority.	Damages (nominal or compensatory), injunction, restitution.
Private Nuisance	Unreasonable, substantial & continuous interference with use or enjoyment.	Fault‑based – intentional or negligent.	Prescription (20 yrs), statutory authority, consent.	Damages, injunction, abatement.
Rylands v Fletcher	Strict liability for escape of a dangerous thing from a non‑natural use of land.	Strict (fault‑independent) liability.	Act of God, act of third party, consent, statutory authority.	Compensatory damages, injunction (exceptional).

6. AS‑Level Foundations (for a complete 9084 package)

6.1 The English Legal System

Sources of law – legislation (primary & delegated), common law (judicial precedent), EU law (where applicable), and European Convention on Human Rights.
Statutory interpretation – literal, golden, purposive approaches.
Hierarchy of courts – Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court, High Court (King’s Bench, Chancery, Family), Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.

6.2 Machinery of Justice

Civil procedure – claim form, particulars of claim, defence, disclosure, trial, judgment.
Criminal procedure – police powers, charging, arraignment, trial, sentencing.
Alternative dispute resolution – mediation, arbitration, conciliation.

6.3 Legal Personnel

Judiciary – Lord Chief Justice, Court of Appeal judges, High Court judges.
Legal practitioners – solicitors (client advice, preparation), barristers (advocacy).
Lay magistrates and district judges – criminal courts.
Juries – role in Crown Court trials.

6.4 Criminal Law (Key Principles)

Actus reus – voluntary act or omission where there is a duty to act.
Mens rea – intention, recklessness, knowledge, negligence.
Offences against property – theft, burglary, robbery, criminal damage.
Defences – insanity, intoxication, self‑defence, duress, necessity.
Sentencing – custodial, community orders, fines; guidelines (sentencing council).

7. Summary

The notes above provide a full, syllabus‑aligned overview of the torts affecting land, the neighbouring tort of negligence, the torts affecting the person, the general defences and remedies, and the essential AS‑Level foundations required for Cambridge International Law 9084. Use the case tables for quick revision, and refer to the statutory citations for precise legal authority.

Torts affecting land

Torts Affecting Land (Cambridge A‑Level Law 9084)

1. Negligence (Syllabus 4.1)