0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
341 Ansichten1 Seite
This document discusses the tort of trespass to land under Malaysian law. It provides definitions and elements of trespass, as well as case law examples. Trespass to land involves entry onto another's land without lawful justification or unreasonable interference with their possession. There are two elements: 1) the mental state of the defendant requiring intention to trespass, whether knowingly or through negligence; and 2) direct interference with the plaintiff's land, such as entering, remaining, or placing objects on the land without authorization. The document outlines several cases where defendants were found liable for trespass through voluntary or negligent acts that interfered with the plaintiff's possession of their land.
This document discusses the tort of trespass to land under Malaysian law. It provides definitions and elements of trespass, as well as case law examples. Trespass to land involves entry onto another's land without lawful justification or unreasonable interference with their possession. There are two elements: 1) the mental state of the defendant requiring intention to trespass, whether knowingly or through negligence; and 2) direct interference with the plaintiff's land, such as entering, remaining, or placing objects on the land without authorization. The document outlines several cases where defendants were found liable for trespass through voluntary or negligent acts that interfered with the plaintiff's possession of their land.
This document discusses the tort of trespass to land under Malaysian law. It provides definitions and elements of trespass, as well as case law examples. Trespass to land involves entry onto another's land without lawful justification or unreasonable interference with their possession. There are two elements: 1) the mental state of the defendant requiring intention to trespass, whether knowingly or through negligence; and 2) direct interference with the plaintiff's land, such as entering, remaining, or placing objects on the land without authorization. The document outlines several cases where defendants were found liable for trespass through voluntary or negligent acts that interfered with the plaintiff's possession of their land.
lawful justification, unreasonable interference with
anothers possession of land Actionable per se : Hashim bin di Sato Kogyo Co ltd.
Basely v Clarkson: Defendant liable as the act of
mowing the grass was a voluntary act (mistaken action may be voluntary action and therefore intentional) Conway v George Wimpey Co Ltd
Sgar Restu S/B v Wong Kai Chuan: P in trespass is
entitled to recover damages even he sustained no actual loss.
Deliberate entry is sufficient ( irrelevant where he
believe the entry was authorized honestly, reasonably believe that the land is his.
-Free from any physical interference in respect of
that possession.
Smith v Stone: Dfnt not liable (no consent and
involuntary) the person who brought him in was liable.
Haji Jaafar Haji Hashim v Rohani bt Ab Latip : *th
defendant was mere licensee & did not won the land , has no right to give consent to any party enter tha land and demolish the house, which the right was vested in the plantiff as registered owner. 1st Element : Mental State of Defendant Intention to trespass, as long as voluntarily act and not knowledge requires
League Against Cruel Sport v Scott
Master of Hounds may held liable for trespass if he either intended that the hounds should emter the land or by negligence failure to prevent from doing so. (Failure to exercise proper control tantamount to have intention)
2nd elements :Interference, direct and opposed to
consequential act . a.)
Entering land which is in the plaintiffs
possession.
Kerajaan negeri Selangor v Sagong bin tasi
Act of construction company and Malaysia highway Authority in forcibly demolishing the plaintiffs possessor house and publich was held to be actionable trespass. Hickman v Maisey : the court held that D had committed trespass to land as he was not using the road for its purposes, cross over to the other side of the road. Gov of Msia v Kong Ee Kim : It was not her physical presence on the highway which constituted trespass. 9Depasture of Chicken) Not reasonable use of highway. b.)
Remaining on the plaintiff;s land
Holmes v Wilson: D built buttresses on the
plaintiff land, paid compensation still liable for not removing. Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh : A wall which encroached onto Ps land- continuing trespass as long as wall was not demolished. c.)
Entering or placing object on the
plaintiff land
MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd. V madhill
Development Sdn Bhd. The defendant counterclaim that the access road amounted to continuing trespass and nuisance. The court allowed