32) What is trespass ‘ab initio’?

Where a person enters on the land of another by authority of law (as distinct from authority conferred by the claimant occupier) they may become a trespasser if, by their subsequent conduct, they abuse their right of entry. This doctrine is known as trespass ab initio and is exemplified by the ancient case given below. The subsequent conduct which abuses the right of entry may be stealing an article from the occupier. The abuse relates back to the original entry and he or she becomes a trespasser. The abuse must consist of a misfeasance (i.e. some positive act of wrongdoing, such as stealing) not a non-feasance (i.e. an omission to do something, such as failing to pay for food or drink).

33) What are justifications for entry?

The justification may, therefore, be a defence, as follows:

1) Entry by lawful authority: e.g. by police to make an arrest or to search premises or by bailiffs to distrain for rent or to eject a tenant.

2) Entry to abate a nuisance in emergency

3) Entry made to retake a chattel owned by defendant provided the chattel is placed there by the claimant (occupier of the land) or, possibly, by a third person, and the claimant acts reasonably.

4) Entry by licence or permission of the occupier, express or implied. A licence is ‘that consent which, without passing any interest in the property to which it relates, merely prevents the acts for which consent is given from being wrongful’.

5) Peaceable entry on the land by a person entitled to possession of it.

34) Remedies for trespass to land. Damages: An action of ejectment. Injunction. Ejection. Dispossession. Re-entry on land.

(1) Damages.	This is in general the amount by which the value of the property is diminished as a result of the trespass; not the cost of reinstatement.
(4) An action of ejectment	Where trespass consists in entry by cattle or sheep on the land of another, the occupier’s rights are now governed by the Animals Act, 1971, which replaces the common law rules. S. 4(1) provides that where the defendant’s livestock strays on the claimant’s land, the defendant is, generally, liable for the damage done to the land or to the property on it and for any expenses reasonably incurred by the claimant in keeping the livestock, while it cannot be restored to the defendant, or while it is being detained for certain other purposes. S. 7 gives the occupier of land on to which livestock strays limited rights of detention and sale in certain cases.
(2) Injunction.	This may be used to prevent the continuance or repetition of the act of trespass. The claimant may apply to the court for both damages and an injunction.
(3) Ejection.	The occupier of the land may eject a trespasser after they have been requested to leave and allowed peaceably so to do. No more force may be used than is reasonable in the circumstances; otherwise the occupiers themselves may be sued for assault.

Dispossession means wrongfully depriving another of possession of land.

The general rule is that a claimant to possession must prove the claim by the strength of their own title.

Re-entry on land. Where a person is lawfully entitled to take possession of land those rights should be exercised peaceably otherwise they themselves will be rendered liable. Where a person is wrongfully in possession, it is no tort for a person claiming under a legal title to eject the wrongful possessor forcibly, provided that no more force is used on the wrongful possessor or their goods than is reasonably necessary.

35) What is the wrong of trespass to goods?

The wrong of trespass to goods is the intentional or negligent interference with the possession of goods of another. The interference must be direct and forcible (though a mere touching may be trespass). Trespass is actionable per se. An omission does not give rise to an action in trespass unless it was done intentionally or negligently. Accidental touching of goods is not actionable.

36) What actions amount to a tort of conversion? What are the ways in which conversion may be committed?

Conversion is defined as ‘an act or complex series of acts of wilful interference, without lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it’.