hmmm i was wondering this thing on torts (1 Viewer)

[mr EaZy]

Do the intentional torts afford a plaintiff any remedy for invasion of privacy in Australia today?

if i get this as an essay question

do i have to provide a right answer, or is the kind that depends on how u back up ur argument?

and can someone gimme some inspiration on this one?

like if i tresspass someone's property, i cant be made liable to anything (unless i break something) can i ? coz ive tresspassed heaps of times!

 

[mr EaZy]

oh and frigid,

did u get to keep ur mid semester mc exam? if u did can u please post it up id be msot grateful! (i take it u did urs two semesters ago, and david only puts up only 20 of the total questions on the online thingy) (blethics is poorly managed- trust me)

 

[neo o]

Do the intentional torts afford a plaintiff any remedy for invasion of privacy in Australia today?

You have a remedy for invasion of privacy in the context of trespass to land but I don't think that there is a remedy for the invasion of privacy in itself.

Anything which interferes with the owners ordinary usage of the land could be considered a trespass LJP Investments Pty Ltd v Howard Chia Investments Pty Ltd. Perhaps an invasive invasion of an owner's privacy could be considered as a disruption to the owner's ordinary usage of the land?

You could also mention Lincoln Hunt Australia v Willessee where reporters barged into the offices of Lincoln Hunt Australia and generally made a nuisance of themselves. They were held to have exceeded their license to enter the property (i.e.: people had a license to enter for business, but not for harassing staff) so in some respect that also preserves privacy.

like if i tresspass someone's property, i cant be made liable to anything (unless i break something) can i ? coz ive tresspassed heaps of times!

Trespass is actionable per se meaning that there doesn't have to be any evidence of injury or loss for there to be a trespass, though of course if there is no loss the plaintiff isn't going to get much by way of damages.

And yeah, in some cases there is an implied license to enter another persons property i.e.: granted to you by a footpath leading up to their door, or a door bell etc. In situations like this, you're only considered to be a trespasser when the person in control of the land has withdrawn that license, and you haven't left (along with anything you have brought on to their property) in a reasonable amount of time Halliday v Neville. So you won't be liable in trespass for just walking up someone's driveway for example.

 

[LaraB]

Do the intentional torts afford a plaintiff any remedy for invasion of privacy in Australia today?

if i get this as an essay question

do i have to provide a right answer, or is the kind that depends on how u back up ur argument?

and can someone gimme some inspiration on this one?

like if i tresspass someone's property, i cant be made liable to anything (unless i break something) can i ? coz ive tresspassed heaps of times!

yes, you would have to give a 'right' answer coz if it says "are there remedies under torts for invasion or privacy" if they dont exist, you cant twistit to say they dont.. they either exist or they dont...if it said should they sxist you could argue either way
..... far as i recall there aren't any as such - that's why there have been such problems with caes of trespass by media and the like coz the plaintiffs claimed an invasion of privacy, however torts is not a remedy for this

trespass to property doesnt involve breaking the property - it involves preventing another use of or enjoyment of their land - so you need to look at precedents to establish what is defined as use and enjoyment and whether interference with amenity is relevant and all that kinda stuff. Trespass is actionable per se so damage doesnt need to be proved - trespass to property must satisfy if i remember right, i havent got my torts stuff here , intentional or negligent physical contact with another's property without consent or legal authority more or less...so you dont have to prove that it was broken or whatever..same goes with trespass to person, property etc - u just gotat prove the physical contact not damage

 

[Jonathan A]

Do the intentional torts afford a plaintiff any remedy for invasion of privacy in Australia today?

if i get this as an essay question

do i have to provide a right answer, or is the kind that depends on how u back up ur argument?

and can someone gimme some inspiration on this one?

like if i tresspass someone's property, i cant be made liable to anything (unless i break something) can i ? coz ive tresspassed heaps of times!

Perhaps a little too late, nonetheless here we go.

The courts do not necessary recognise or protect privacy under torts law. ABC v Lenah Meats, the court had to consider such a proposition which it where it was leaning toward perhaps one day evolving to a tort of privacy, however generally this area of law will not allow a remedy. Interestingly, the NSW Supreme Court in Raciti v Hughes [1995] recognised privacy issues, holding that the use of a surveillance camera was in fact a private nuisance and privacy issues were considered.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Of course, currently there is no tort of privacy in Australia. So the question is really about whether the intentional torts are sufficient to protect one's privacy.