Trespass To Chattel Cases And Principles Flashcards
Forson v Koens
The tort of trespass to chattel protects several interests such as the interests of the plaintiff in retaining the possession of the chattel, his interest in the physical condition of the chattel and his interest in protecting the chattel against intermeddling as enunciated in this case.
Heyden v Smith
One of the wrongful interference that could lead to a successful plea of trespass to chattel is destroying the chattel.
It was held it was trespass to cut and take away trees.
Fouldes v Willoughby
Wrongful interference may be damaging the goods.
The owner of 2 horses had come on board a ferry from Birkenhead to Liverpool.
The ferryman refused to carry the horses.
The owner refused to take them back to shore, the ferryman took the bridle from the owner and turned the horses loose at the landing.
The owner stayed put and didn’t try to get the horses back.
He sued the ferryman for conversion but failed.
The court held that the ferryman had committed trespass for his act in causing damage to the horse (wrongful interference)
Penfolds Wines v Elliot
Wrongful interference may be committed by using the chattel.
Penfolds wine was a wine producer and seller. Elliot was a licensed hotelier carrying on business in NSW.
Through embossing on their bottles and notations on their invoices Penfolds informed all those that were in possession of its bottles that they were to be used only for the purposes of retailing and consumption of Penfold’s wines. They always remained the property of Penfolds.
The bottles remained Penfold’s and once the content was used the bottles must be on demand handed over. Bottles were not to be damaged, destroyed, parted with or used for purposes other than retail or consumption.
Penfold asserted that Elliot had been using their bottles to deliver liquids not manufactured or marketed by Penfolds to their customers (2 bottles)
Kirk v Gregory
Wrongful interference can also be in the form of moving an object from one place to another
The defendant moved rings from one room to another
GWK v Dunlop Rubber co
Wrongful interference can also be in the form of moving an object from one place to another
The defendant removed tire by the defendant from a car on show and replaced it with another
Davies v Lagos City Council
In trespass to chattel, the plaintiff doesn’t need to show that there was an infliction of any material damage as a mere taking or transportation suffices.
The council granted the plaintiff a hackney license to operate a taxi cab in Lagos area.
He knew the permit was for his exclusive use and not transferable but he transferred it to a third party.
Officers of the council found this out; and wanted to revoke the license. They seized the taxi and detained it at the LCC pound.
In an action for trespass brought by the plaintiff Adefarasin J held that the council was entitled to revoke the plaintiff’s permit for non compliance but it was not entitled to seize the vehicle. The council was held to be liable for trespass.
Robert v Wyatt
The tort of trespass to chattel protects possession rather than ownership as affirmed in this landmark case.
The plaintiff must have had actual possession of it at the time of interference.
The chattel is not usually taken from his possession unlike in conversion and detinue.
Erivo v Obi
An owner of a chattel may be liable for trespass to chattel if such owner wrongfully interferes with the possessory right of the other party.
The defendant respondent closed the door of the plaintiff appellant’s car and the side windscreen got broken.
Appellant sued for the damage to the windscreen and the loss he incurred in hiring another car to attend to his business.
The court of appeal held the defendant was not liable.
He didn’t use excessive force but just normal force in the closing of the door.
He didn’t break the windscreen negligently or intentionally.
Note;
A person who acquires possession of goods wrongfully can maintain an action in trespass against any person who wrongfully interferes with the goods except the owner or his agent
The owner of a chattel cannot maintain an action in trespass if he didn’t have actual possession of it at the time of the interference
