Trespass to Land : Entry into others land without

lawful justification, unreasonable interference with

anothers possession of land
Actionable per se : Hashim bin di Sato Kogyo Co
ltd.

Basely v Clarkson: Defendant liable as the act of

mowing the grass was a voluntary act (mistaken
action may be voluntary action and therefore
intentional)
Conway v George Wimpey Co Ltd

Sgar Restu S/B v Wong Kai Chuan: P in trespass is

entitled to recover damages even he sustained no
actual loss.

Deliberate entry is sufficient ( irrelevant where he

believe the entry was authorized honestly,
reasonably believe that the land is his.

-Free from any physical interference in respect of

that possession.

Smith v Stone: Dfnt not liable (no consent and

involuntary) the person who brought him in was
liable.

Haji Jaafar Haji Hashim v Rohani bt Ab Latip : *th

defendant was mere licensee & did not won the
land , has no right to give consent to any party
enter tha land and demolish the house, which the
right was vested in the plantiff as registered owner.
1st Element : Mental State of Defendant
Intention to trespass, as long as voluntarily act and
not knowledge requires

League Against Cruel Sport v Scott

Master of Hounds may held liable for trespass if he
either intended that the hounds should emter the
land or by negligence failure to prevent from doing
so. (Failure to exercise proper control tantamount
to have intention)

2nd elements :Interference, direct and opposed to

consequential act .
a.)

Entering land which is in the plaintiffs

possession.

Kerajaan negeri Selangor v Sagong bin tasi

Act of construction company and Malaysia
highway Authority in forcibly demolishing
the plaintiffs possessor house and publich was
held to be actionable trespass.
Hickman v Maisey : the court held that D had
committed trespass to land as he was not
using the road for its purposes, cross over to
the other side of the road.
Gov of Msia v Kong Ee Kim : It was not her
physical presence on the highway which
constituted trespass. 9Depasture of Chicken)
Not reasonable use of highway.
b.)

Remaining on the plaintiff;s land

Holmes v Wilson: D built buttresses on the

plaintiff land, paid compensation still liable
for not removing.
Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh : A wall which
encroached onto Ps land- continuing trespass
as long as wall was not demolished.
c.)

Entering or placing object on the

plaintiff land

MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd. V madhill

Development Sdn Bhd.
The defendant counterclaim that the access
road amounted to continuing trespass and
nuisance. The court allowed