Part C

There are several issues that can be found in the given case. The first issue is whether thedefendant
Billy can be

held liable for trespass to land when he entered plaintiffs property which is

Anna

House. The second issue is whether the defendant Billy can be held liable for his act on taken

plaintiffs good which

Omega watch that

is on Annas possession under trespass to good. The third

issue is whether the defendant Rose can be held liable under detinue for her refusal to return

plaintiffs property which Annas watch when Anna demand for the return immediately

. The lastissue is whether the defendant Rose is liable for her act on pushing the plaintiff, Anna and
caused herfell and ankle twisted under battery.In order to prove trespass to land, trespass to goods
and detinue, there are three commonelements that that need to be fulfilled in order for the plaintiff
to succeed in the claim.The first common element that needs to be fulfilled by all trespass is the act
of the defendantmust be committing intentionally. In case of

Letang v Cooper [1964] ALL ER 292

, the court held that

the plaintiffs claim for act of defendant who negligently run his car over the plaintiff body while the

plaintiff is sunbathing on his piece of grass where the car were park cannot be recovered under
thetrespass as there is no intention by the defendant, but the claim might be succeed if the trial
made

under tort of negligence. In applying the Letangs case to th

ese issue, Billy is intentionally enter

Annas house when he pretending to be invited guest at the wedding in the Annas house
andsnooping around the house. Billy is also intentionally take Annas watch when he put the
Omegawatch that is on Annas possession on his pocket right after he saw it.

Rose also shows her intentionto keep the watch owned by Anna when she refused to return the
watch to Anna after Anna demand

for it and got into an argument. Rose also intentionally pushed Anna due to Annas act that tried to

open the display unit where her watch is located and cause Anna fell and her ankle
twisted.Therefore, the first common elements have been fulfilled by the entire defendant.The
second common element that needs to be fulfilled is the defendant act must be directand physical.
This means that the injury must be direct rather than consequential. This law can beseen in the case
of

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation (1956)

where the court held thatthe defendant is not liable as the damage of spilt petroleum was
consequential due to the oil carriedby the tide onto the shore and not directly from the defendant.
Applying this second common

element to these issues, it is foreseeable that Billy is doing direct act when he entered Annas house

without her permission. Billy also on his own will when he doing a direct act by

took Annas watch

and put it in his pocket. Rose also made a direct act when she expressly show that she refused
toreturn the demanded watch owned by Anna and got into argument with Anna. Moreover, Rose
byher own will doing a direct act towards Anna when she pushed Anna

s body

to stop her from openingthe display unit to get her own watch and caused her fell and her ankle
twisted. Hence, the secondcommon element is also being fulfilled by the defendants in all issues.The
third common element is the act itself is

actionable per se

. it means that the plaintiff does not have to proof any damage as a result because the act of
defendant itself has show atrespass. This law can be seen in case of

Gregory v Piper [1829] 9B & C 591

where the court held that

defendant is liable because the act of defendant on putting rubbish onto the plaintiffs wall itself

showed an interference. It is actionable per se without the need to proof of actual damages
sufferedby the plaintiff.

Therefore the act of Billy entering Annas house itself when he entered the Annas

property without her permission is actionable per se without having Anna to prove damages that

suffered by her. The act of Billy took Annas watch and keep in his pocket without Annas consent is

actionable per se without having Anna to prove damages on her property. The act of Rose refuse
thedemanding from Anna for her watch is actionable per se without Anna has to prove any damage
as aresult of refusal. The act of Rose pushed Anna to stop her from opening the display unit to get
her

own watch is actionable per se without Anna to proof any damages or injury due Roses act. For that
reason, the third common element is also been fulfilled by the defendants in all issues for this
case.Having fulfilled the common element, the specific element for the trespass should becontinued
in order to attain favourable judgment and make a plaintiff to succeed in the claimableissue.The first
issue is on trespass to land. Trespass to land is unjustifiable interference with thepossession of land.
Other element that must be fulfilled is the plaintiff must be in the principle

possession of the property. Applying this element to Billys issue, Anna is the owner of land and also

in the possession of her land when the wedding is held at her house at time Billy is entering
herhouse. Therefore, Anna also fulfilled the element of trespass to land.Having fulfilled all the
elements in trespass to land, it can be conclude that Billy is liable for

the act of trespassing Annas house without her consent. Consequently, Anna may proceed with her

claim to the court to seek for her right under tort of trespass to land.The second issue is on trespass
to good. Trespass to good is unjustifiable interference withgoods that is in possession of one person.
Specific element for trespass to good is the title of theplaintiff. The plaintiff must have been in the
possession at the time of the interference complained.In case of Wilson v Lombank (1963) the action
defendant for removing the car of the plaintiff whichhas left on the garage was held as trespass as
the car was under the possession of the plaintiff eventhough the plaintiff bought from someone who
has no title to sell it. Applying this element tothis case, Anna is the owner of the watch and in
possession of the watch at the time Billy took thewatch without her consent. Therefore, this
element is fulfilled.Having fulfilled all the common element and specific element in trespass to good,
Billy islia

ble for the act of taken Annas Omega watch when he put it in his pocket without her consent.

Therefore, Anna may proceed with her claim to the court to seek for her right under tort of
trespassto good.The third issue is on detinue. Detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful
detention of goods by the defendant. There are two specific elements in detinue that must be
fulfilled in orderfor the plaintiff to claim for her right in the court. The first element is demand and
refusal. Theremust be a demand from the plaintiff for the return of the goods upon his authority and
refusal fromthe defendant. In case of PKNS v Teo Kai Huat Building Contractor (1982), the court held
that thedefendant is liable for the damages he caused as the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff
to bringout the machinery and equipment from the building site for one and a half year which by
that timethe equipment could no longer be used.

Applying this case to Annas situat

ion, Rose also refuse toreturn back the watch owned by Anna eventhough she have demand for the
watch immediatelyafter she saw it. They also have an argument due to the demand and refusal.
Therefore, the firstelement for detinue is fulfilled.

The second specific element in detinue is the plaintiff must show that he has both right of
possession and right of property. In case of Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali (1960), court held that
theplaintiff is entitled to claim for the lorry eventhough the transaction between defendant and
plaintiff is illegal, nevertheless it was fully executed and carried out and the lorry is at that time have
fully inpossession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff owned the right of the lorry. By referring this case
to the

Annas situati
on, Anna owned both right of possession and right of property because Billy have noright to

the watch since he take it without Annas consent and Anna is the legal owner to the watch

and in the possession of the watch. Second element is fulfilled.Having fulfilled all the common
element and specific element in detinue, the defendant, Roseis liable under detinue for refusal to
return Anna watch after she demand it to return and the plaintiff Anna is entitled to claim for her
watch to be return by the defendant, Rose.The last issue is in battery. Battery is the direct and
intentional application of force to

another person without that persons consent. There

are two specific elements that must be fulfilledin order for the plaintiff to attain favourable
judgment. The first element is the contact must be to

the plaintiffs body or cloth being worn at that time. In case Nash v Sheen (1953), court held that the

defendant is liable for battery because the defendant perms the hair of the plaintiff without her

consent and caused irritation. Applying this to Annas situation, it clearly been stated that
thedefendant, Rose was pushed Annas body to refrain her from opening the display unit where her

watch is located and cause Anna fell and her ankle twisted. This fulfilled the first element.The second
element act must be performed without consent of the plaintiff. In case of livingstone v Minister of
Defence (1984), the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim in batteryas he without his
consent, was hit by a bullet intended by a soldier to someone else. In case of Anna,she also have no
consent that she will be pushed by the Rose when she try to take her own watchfrom the display
unit and fell and got her ankle twisted. The second element is fulfilled.Having fulfilled all the
common element and specific element in battery, the defendant, Roseis liable under battery for
pushing Anna and caused her fell and gets her ankle twisted. The plaintiff Anna is entitled to claim
for the damage and injury caused by Rose.In conclusion, all parties above have been proven their
liability and court could asked them tocompensate the claimants by way of damages.