must have exclusive possession of land eg
ownership/leasehold New south wales v Ibbett
2) interference with the land
interference
without authority
plenty v dillion
entry for impermissible purpose
halliday v neville
TCN channel 9 pty ltd v anning
rufusal to leave: kuru v new south wales
contact with the land
setting foot on land : plenty
throwing objects onto land: konskier v goodman
with the land
anything attatched to land eg. grass
plants trees, gravel or buildings
airspace ' to such a height that is necessary for the ordinary use
and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it' Baron of
Bernstein v skyviews
aircrafts flying = no tresspass
subsoil will be tresspass in absence
of stat authority : stoneman v lyons
3) interference was intentional or negligent
must intend/been negligent nickells
v Melbourne corporation
do not need to prove D intended
interference was direct
act must directly bring
about the contact with the
plaintiffs land southport
corp v esso petroleum co
ltd
tree branches no trespass
defences
a licence or lawful justification to enter (consent)
members of the public have implied licence to enter an unobstructed
front yard and walk up the path or driveway to the front door for a
legitimate purpose; Halliday v Nevil
does not count if there is a sign saying not to enter or locked gate
can be withdrawn
TV does not have right to have cameras rolling TCN channel 9 pty ltd v Anning
business premises; normally implies authority to all members of the public to enter the premisis to
discuss business. Lincoln hunt australia pty ltd v willesee
stat provisions only give power
to enter premises where the
provision expressly confers
apower or where a power of
entry is impliedly necessary in
order to give functionality to the
provision plent v dillion
remedies
aggraved damages ; protect privacy to land
even though no damage done; plenty v dillion
exemplary damages; concious wrongdoing new south wales v ibbett
ejectment of trespasser; a person who remains on the premises after occupier has asked to leave becomes trespasser
once reasonable time has lapsed; cowell v rosehill racecourse co.
the occupier or authorised rep is entitled to use force reasonably necessary to
remove trespasser; Horkin v North melbourne football club social club; pull push or
carry cannot use force to deliberatly cause harm. cullen v Rice
if threatened by D/ resist removal they can use any force reasonably require to defend
nominal nsw v ibbett
compensatory; natural and
probable losses; hogan v AG
wright pty ltd