Sophie Marsh Case Summary

1237 Words5 Pages
To sue, the plaintiff must have exclusive possession of the land. Exclusive possession of land is not founded on the need for legal title to the land, but alternatively is established by acts of ownership. To bring an action to trespass, exclusive possession of the house lies with the person who uses the property for recreation, managing and engaging in acts of ownership. Sophie Marsh satisfies the requirements for exclusive possession of the land through her acts of ownership of the property. On the grounds that there is an interest and engagement in the land, Marsh, whether owner or tenant has a title to sue. Direct interference to land is voluntary and intentional with a direct physical interference with the land. On the facts, the defendant voluntarily and intentionally entered the plaintiff’s land, therefore, the defendant’s act is a direct interference. For interference to be actionable as a trespass to land, there must be an interference with the land. The nature of interfering with the land, need not actually enter the land so long as the defendant causes some object to contact the property. Due to walking up the garden path to an electricity metre at the side of the…show more content…
On the facts, the defendant lunged at Frank. There is a required immediate effect of the defendants act to cause contact with the plaintiff’s person however, the facts are unclear on whether contact was made. Elucidating this fact is necessary to establish a successful action in battery. If on no account contact was made to the plaintiff’s person, an action is assault may be established. To sue for assault the facts must maintain direct and either negligent or intentional cause for the plaintiff to apprehend imminent direct contact with themselves, affecting their purpose. On the facts, absence of a threat to imminent harm would not satisfy the elements pertaining to

More about Sophie Marsh Case Summary

Open Document