Master of Science
Applying the principles of Trespass Law, is there or could there be an actionable trespass in the Jolly v James case and what would the likely remedy be?
A full understanding of the meaning of trespass needs to be established, before determining whether there is an actionable trespass in the case of Jolly v James (“the Case”). In this essay, there will be an exploration into the different types of trespass, including trespass to the surface and subsurface of land as well as trespass to the airspace. In addition there will be details concerning the Party Wall Act 1996, building up to the boundary, astride the boundary and the 3 meter ruling. Lastly, there will be a brief glance at the relevant boundary and light disputes between the parties. In particular, case law will be used to address these topics.
In its basic form, a trespass may happen when one strays onto another’s land or airspace either intentionally or by mistake and as usual with law, ignorance is no defence. The degree of compensation awarded will vary depending on the triviality or severity of the damage caused by the act of trespass. More generally speaking, air space and subsurface types of trespass take more application than the mistaken wandering onto another person’s property, which is then reflected in the compensation. Should there be no damage at all, such as a mistaken entry into a farmer field, then the compensation will be negligible. The act of trespass is considered more serious in relation to damage caused and should it be of permanent nature, i.e. a building that permanently encroaches a boundary, it is regarded as extremely serious. In these cases a financial compensation is deemed inadequate and the courts can order the offending building to be pulled down. This was the case with Harrow London Borough Council v Donohue and another [1995] 1 EGLR 257. A freehold property includes the airspace up to the level of what would be constituted reasonable use for the
A full understanding of the meaning of trespass needs to be established, before determining whether there is an actionable trespass in the case of Jolly v James (“the Case”). In this essay, there will be an exploration into the different types of trespass, including trespass to the surface and subsurface of land as well as trespass to the airspace. In addition there will be details concerning the Party Wall Act 1996, building up to the boundary, astride the boundary and the 3 meter ruling. Lastly, there will be a brief glance at the relevant boundary and light disputes between the parties. In particular, case law will be used to address these topics.
In its basic form, a trespass may happen when one strays onto another’s land or airspace either intentionally or by mistake and as usual with law, ignorance is no defence. The degree of compensation awarded will vary depending on the triviality or severity of the damage caused by the act of trespass. More generally speaking, air space and subsurface types of trespass take more application than the mistaken wandering onto another person’s property, which is then reflected in the compensation. Should there be no damage at all, such as a mistaken entry into a farmer field, then the compensation will be negligible. The act of trespass is considered more serious in relation to damage caused and should it be of permanent nature, i.e. a building that permanently encroaches a boundary, it is regarded as extremely serious. In these cases a financial compensation is deemed inadequate and the courts can order the offending building to be pulled down. This was the case with Harrow London Borough Council v Donohue and another [1995] 1 EGLR 257. A freehold property includes the airspace up to the level of what would be constituted reasonable use for the