This advice will consider the potential claims in tort available to Moon Consultants (Moon), Sara, and Mark based on the events that occurred. The claims will be addressed for each party in turn, identifying the relevant issues, setting out the applicable law, and applying it to the facts provided before reaching a conclusion on the likely success of each action.
Advice for Sara
Sara may have potential claims in tort against George and the other protestors for the events that occurred in the car park. These claims are in assault and trespass to goods.
Claim in Assault against George
Issue The primary issue is whether George’s actions amount to the tort of assault.
Law Assault is defined as an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person (Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172). For an assault to be established, there must be a voluntary and positive act by the defendant, which causes the claimant to reasonably apprehend the application of immediate and direct unlawful force. The defendant must have intended to cause this apprehension. It was established in R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 that words alone or even silence can constitute an assault, provided they cause the required apprehension. The threat of force must be immediate. For example, in Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) [1986] ICR 1, it was held that intimidating gestures and words from striking miners were not an assault because they were held back by a police cordon and therefore lacked the capacity to carry out an immediate battery.
Application On the facts, George performed a positive act by shouting at Sara and starting to walk towards her car. His words, calling her "a thief", were hostile. This act was accompanied by a physical advance towards her, which was reinforced when other protestors followed him. The key question is whether Sara reasonably apprehended 'immediate' force. Sara was in her car, which provides some protection. However, unlike the miners in Thomas v NUM, there was no police line or other barrier preventing George and the crowd from reaching her car. They were close enough to throw eggs, demonstrating their capacity to apply force to her property and, by extension, potentially to her person if they reached the vehicle. The fact that Sara was "frightened" and "quickly drove away" is strong evidence that she did in fact apprehend imminent and unlawful force. George’s intention to cause this apprehension can be inferred from his aggressive actions of shouting and leading others towards her.
Conclusion It is likely that Sara would succeed in a claim for assault against George. His actions and words were sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery.
Claim in Trespass to Goods
Issue The issue is whether Sara has a claim against the protestors who threw eggs at her car.
Law The tort of trespass to goods is committed by an intentional and direct act of interference with goods in the possession of the claimant. It is actionable per se, meaning the claimant does not have to prove that they have suffered any loss or damage, although damage is often present. Any direct and intentional touching of another’s goods without lawful justification is a trespass (Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 2022).
Application The car is Sara's personal property, or 'goods'. The protestors throwing eggs at her car is a clear intentional and direct act of interference. The eggs made physical contact with the car, fulfilling the requirement of direct interference. While George did not throw the eggs himself, he instigated the confrontation and could potentially be held liable as a joint tortfeasor if it can be shown he encouraged the others. However, a claim is more straightforward against the individuals who actually threw the eggs.
Conclusion Sara has a clear claim in trespass to goods against the protestors who threw the eggs. Her main difficulty would be identifying which individuals were responsible. She would be entitled to damages for the cost of cleaning the car.
Advice for Moon Consultants
Moon may have claims against Along and the protestors who entered the building and damaged property. The potential claims are for trespass to land and trespass to goods.
Claim in Trespass to Land
Issue The issue is whether the protestors committed trespass to land when they entered Moon's office building.
Law Trespass to land is an unjustified direct and intentional interference with land in the possession of another. The tort is actionable per se. The slightest crossing of the boundary is sufficient, and the defendant's motive is irrelevant; all that is required is an intention to enter the land (Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort, 2020).
Application The protestors, led by Along, did not have permission to enter Moon's office building. They forced the front door and rushed into the building. This constitutes an intentional and direct entry onto land in Moon's possession. The use of force to gain entry makes the trespass particularly clear. Along, as the leader, would be liable, as would every protestor who entered the building.
Conclusion Moon has an unequivocal and strong claim for trespass to land against Along and the other protestors who entered the premises. While the tort is actionable per se, Moon can also claim for any consequential damage caused by the trespass itself, such as the broken door and windows.
Claim in Trespass to Goods
Issue The issue is whether Moon can claim for the damage to the office furniture.
Law As established above, trespass to goods involves an intentional and direct interference with another's goods. This interference can take many forms, including moving, damaging, or destroying the goods. Where goods are destroyed, the defendant is liable for their full value.
Application The facts state that the protestors "started to smash and break the furniture". This is a clear act of intentional and direct interference with Moon's goods (the furniture). It goes beyond mere touching and constitutes destruction or significant damage.
Conclusion Moon has a very strong claim in trespass to goods against the protestors who damaged the furniture. Moon would be entitled to damages to cover the cost of repairing or replacing the broken items. Again, the difficulty may lie in identifying all individuals involved.
Advice for Mark
Mark may have a potential claim against the security guard, Johnny, for false imprisonment. However, Johnny may have a valid defence.
Claim in False Imprisonment against Johnny
Issue The first issue is whether Johnny’s act of locking Mark in his office amounts to false imprisonment.
Law False imprisonment is the unlawful imposition of a constraint upon another's freedom of movement from a particular place (Collins v Wilcock). The tort requires a complete restriction of the claimant's freedom of movement, with no reasonable means of escape (Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742). The defendant must intend the act of confinement, though a malicious motive is not required. Crucially, the claimant does not need to be aware of the imprisonment at the time it occurs (Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44).
Application Johnny intentionally performed the act of locking Mark's office door. This act resulted in Mark being confined to the room. The restraint was total; there is no mention of any reasonable means of escape, and Mark was only freed when Johnny heard him shouting. Therefore, all the basic elements of the tort are present. The fact that Mark "slept through the whole event" and was unaware of his confinement is not a bar to his claim, following the principle in Meering.
Conclusion On a prima facie basis, Mark can establish the tort of false imprisonment against Johnny.
Johnny's Defence of Necessity
Issue The next issue is whether Johnny can successfully raise the defence of necessity.
Law The defence of necessity may excuse a defendant's tortious conduct where it was reasonably necessary to act in order to prevent a greater evil. For private necessity, the test laid down by Lord Goff in Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 is applicable. This requires (1) a real and imminent danger of harm to the person, and (2) that the action taken was reasonable and proportionate for a reasonable person to take in the circumstances, acting in the best interests of the assisted person.
Application Johnny was faced with a violent crowd that had broken down the front door and was smashing furniture. He saw Mark asleep and "fear[ed] for Mark's safety," perceiving it was too late for him to escape. This situation appears to constitute a real and imminent danger of serious physical harm to Mark. The action Johnny took was to lock the door, presumably to hide Mark from the violent protestors. This seems a reasonable and proportionate step to take in the heat of the moment to protect Mark from harm. Waking Mark might have caused panic, or his attempts to escape could have drawn the attention of the crowd. A reasonable person could well conclude that locking him in for his own safety was the best course of action. Johnny also took the responsible step of calling the police.
Conclusion While Mark can technically establish the tort of false imprisonment, Johnny has a very strong argument for the defence of necessity. Courts are generally sympathetic to defendants who act reasonably in an emergency to prevent serious harm. It is therefore highly probable that Johnny’s defence would succeed, and Mark's claim would fail. Even if the claim succeeded, damages would likely be nominal given Mark was unaware of the imprisonment and it was done for his own protection (Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692).
References
Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742.
Clerk, J. F. and Lindsell, W. H. B. (2022) Clerk & Lindsell on Torts. 23rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172.
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44.
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692.
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.
Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1.
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) [1986] ICR 1.
Winfield, P. H. and Jolowicz, J. A. (2020) Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort. 20th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
