LW2103 Law of Tort Tutorial Question 5 Presented by: Alan Lin Vivien Leung

Facts A, the plaintiff, was prevented by B, the defendant, from leaving even his reason for early departure being an urgent private matter. The employment contract stated that A may not leave the factory premises during his 8-hour work-shift.

Legal Issues 1) Whether torts have been committed? 2) If yes, what torts have been committed?

Intentional Tort Whether the act is direct and intentional If yes, the plaintiff brings an action in intentional tort Trespass to the person is an example of intentional tort

False Imprisonment A form of trespass to the person Requires for direct and intentional act Results in total restraint on the plaintiff’s freedom of movement within limits set by the Defendant Without Plaintiff’s consent or any lawful justification.

False Imprisonment In the case, Decision made solely affected the interest of A. B was the sole decision-maker. The act of B ( i.e.. preventing A from leaving earlier) was direct and intentional.

False Imprisonment Without B’s approval, A was kept in the factory till the end of the 8-hour work shift. Thus A’s freedom of movement was restrained without A’s consent (against A’s will)

False Imprisonment B had committed the false improvement? From the above definition, B probably committed the false imprisonment. However, According to the employment contract, A is not allowed to leave during working.

False Imprisonment Question? --- Is B Justified to restrain A for his breach of his contractual obligation? Two similar cases in the past: 1) Robinson V Balmain New Ferry Co.Ltd 2) Herd case

Robinson V Balmain New Ferry Facts: The P had contracted with D to enter their wharf & stay there till the boat should start, and then be taken by the boat to other side. after entry P changed mind and want to exit without payment of prescribed fee, which was required by D

Robinson V Balmain New Ferry P was prevented to leave and sued D for false imprisonment. Judgment: There was no false imprisonment. Reason-  P had the contractual obligation to pay fees to leave, D was reasonable to restrain P if he refuse to pay money.

Herd V Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co.Ltd. Facts: The P was lowered into a coal mine at 9:30a.m. for working, ordinarily he can be raised up to the surface after completion of his work at 4p.m. P was ordered to do some work he wrongfully refused to do at the bottom of coal mine

Herd V Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co.Ltd At 11a.m. P went on strike and suddenly requested to be drawn up to the surface by a lift He was eventually brought up at 1:30pm, though the lift is already available at 1:10pm

Herd V Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co.Ltd P was detained in the mine against his will for 20 mins. He sued D for false imprisonment Judgment : No false Imprisonment. Reason  It is not false imprisonment to hold a man to the condition he has accepted.

Conclusion From the above two cases, both P has some contractual obligation with D In this case, A also. B’s restraining A to leave is just requesting A to perform his obligation, NOT A FALSE IMPRISONMENT !

Conclusion All Torts of trespass require a positive act. There was no positive act on the part of D B didn’t actively imprison A, but only refuse to let A leave so that A can perform his contractual obligation Hence NO TORTS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY B.