Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:01

From: Michael Jones

Subject: Interference with property

Any thoughts?

(1) Having allowed me onto your land to play with the football, how did you stop me just picking up the ball and marching off your land?

(2) The modern regulatory state exercises all sorts of powers over private property which may prevent the owner exploiting its commercial potential. If I apply for planning permission to develop a derelict plot of my land and this is refused (perhaps by a planning officer/committee acting ultra vires) I will have no claim for the resulting financial loss – at least not in tort.

It is long time since an Englishman's home was his castle ...

Michael

--------------------------------------
Michael A. Jones
Professor of Common Law
Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Liverpool  
L69 3BX

Phone: (0)151 794 2821
Fax: (0)151 794 2829
--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Botterell   
Sent: Tue 18/11/2008 15:36
To: Andrew Tettenborn
Subject: Re: interference with property

It's a nice case. But I can imagine my students objecting as follows: suppose through your negligence your football lands in my back yard. And suppose I refuse to allow you to take it back (perhaps I think it poses a hazard to children playing nearby). I do allow you to play with it on my land, however, under my supervision, and while I allow you to do whatever you want to it – paint it, deflate it, what have you – I won't allow you to take it home with you. Aren't my actions inconsistent with your rights to the football? True, you are welcome to your football, in the sense that you can play with it (albeit under my supervision), but of course you can't go anywhere with it. But surely that is one mark of ownership. So it seems to me that I have done something that is inconsistent with your title to the football. And I'm not sure how this case differs from Club Cruise Entertainment.

Maybe it will be said that in my football case there was a taking of possession, so that I'm guilty of a trespass to chattels. But surely I didn't take it in any ordinary sense: I didn't actively take it from you, and since it found its way onto my land as a result of your negligence I'm not at fault for its being there either.  

Any thoughts?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>